Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.66% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2020
CVE-2020-10134High confidence
Bluetooth devices supporting LE and specific BR/EDR implementations are vulnerable to method confusion attacks
Bluetooth · LE
6.3MediumCVSS 3.1
Scheduled
Fix not verifiedMedium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityMedium→Operational priority:Medium, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Bluetooth LE and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Distribution package intelligence
1 package stateRelease-specific package status
ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | bluez | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Pairing in Bluetooth® Core v5.2 and earlier may permit an unauthenticated attacker to acquire credentials with two pairing devices via adjacent access when the unauthenticated user initiates different pairing methods in each peer device and an end-user erroneously completes both pairing procedures with the MITM using the confirmation number of one peer as the passkey of the other. An adjacent, unauthenticated attacker could be able to initiate any Bluetooth operation on either attacked device exposed by the enabled Bluetooth profiles. This exposure may be limited when the user must authorize certain access explicitly, but so long as a user assumes that it is the intended remote device requesting permissions, device-local protections may be weakened.
What
Pairing in Bluetooth® Core v5.2 and earlier may permit an unauthenticated attacker to acquire credentials with two pairing devices via adjacent access when the unauthenticated user initiates different pairing methods in each peer device and an end-user erroneously completes both pairing procedures with the MITM using the confirmation number of one peer as the passkey of the other. An adjacent, unauthenticated attacker could be able to initiate any Bluetooth operation on either attacked device exposed by the enabled Bluetooth profiles. This exposure may be limited when the user must authorize certain access explicitly, but so long as a user assumes that it is the intended remote device requesting permissions, device-local protections may be weakened.
Why
The product does not properly distinguish between different types of elements in a way that leads to insecure behavior.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Pairing in Bluetooth® Core v5.2 and earlier may permit an unauthenticated attacker to acquire credentials with two pairing devices via adjacent access when the unauthenticated user initiates different pairing methods in each peer device and an end-user erroneously completes both pairing procedures with the MITM using the confirmation number of one peer as the passkey of the other. An adjacent, unauthenticated attacker could be able to initiate any Bluetooth operation on either attacked device exposed by the enabled Bluetooth profiles. This exposure may be limited when the user must authorize certain access explicitly, but so long as a user assumes that it is the intended remote device requesting permissions, device-local protections may be weakened.
Why
The product does not properly distinguish between different types of elements in a way that leads to insecure behavior.
How
An attacker operating through an adjacent network may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- an adjacent network → Insufficient Type Distinction → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Adjacent
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-351 ↗
CWE-351: Insufficient Type Distinction. The product does not properly distinguish between different types of elements in a way that leads to insecure behavior.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVAdjacentAttack vector: The attacker must be on an adjacent or logically close network.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- Stolen credentials, tokens and legitimate administration functions may provide continued access without deploying a large custom toolset.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- LE: 5.2 ≤ 5.2
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 19 May 2020 · Last source change 16 Sept 2024, 20:01 UTC · CWE-351 · Insufficient Type Distinction
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2020-2597
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.