CVE-2026-96456 — The Reachy Mini Bluetooth service asks a connecting device for a PIN before it will…
The Reachy Mini Bluetooth service asks a connecting device for a PIN before it will accept commands. The check protects the session but not the caller, so an attacker in Bluetooth range can ride along on someone else's successful authentication. The authenticated state is kept in a single shared flag on the service instance rather than per device. BlueZ passes the calling device's identity to the characteristic write handler in the options argument, but WriteValue(self, value, options) in src/reachy_mini/daemon/app/services/bluetooth/bluetooth_service.py ignores options entirely. The handler therefore has no idea which device sent a given write, and it cannot tell the authenticated one from any other. Once any device completes the PIN exchange, the flag is set and every nearby device can send CMD_ commands until it resets. An attacker simply waits within radio range for a legitimate user to authenticate, then writes commands into the same window. No PIN is ever guessed or brute-forced. This is the second step of a three-step chain that JFrog documented against the robot. The first is the unrestricted file upload in the media sounds API, tracked as CVE-2026-55419, which places an attacker-controlled script on the filesystem. This issue then provides command access over Bluetooth. The third is the Bluetooth command handler path traversal, tracked as CVE-2026-62661, which runs that script as root.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- Technical severity (medium)+3
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Affected products have not been identified by the sources yet: follow the vendor advisory and map candidate assets by component name.
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
- Search available logs for exploit probes matching the vulnerability class (authentication), errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
Affected products not yet identified by the sources.
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.3 | CVSS 3.1 | Medium | 2.1 | 3.7 | reefs@jfrog.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:L (score shown at the top: reefs@jfrog.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Review authentication logs: logins without MFA, anomalous sessions and recently created accounts.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 6.3
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- Record created in this database
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026
References
5 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No FIRST EPSS score.
- No affected product/version with evidence in the sources.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No CISA SSVC assessment.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-96456 is "The Reachy Mini Bluetooth service asks a connecting device for a PIN before it will…", rated Medium. Affected products have not been identified by the sources yet. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 6.3 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.