Attack ChainAIDerived
Hypothetical attack flow derived from CVE metadata – not a confirmed exploit chain
-
AccessGain physical access to charger enclosure
-
DeliveryExpose and strap i.MX6 recovery pins
-
ExploitForce NXP serial-download/recovery boot
-
ExecutionBoot attacker-controlled code in memory
-
PersistDump and modify firmware and secrets
-
ImpactFlash trojanized firmware / exfiltrate data
Vulnerability Assessment
| Weakness |
CWE
ASVS 5.0
V15 - Secure Coding and Architecture On-chip debug access control
|
| Exploitation Conditions | Exploitation requires direct physical access to the charger's internal circuit board and the ability to manipulate the exposed NXP i.MX6 hardware recovery/boot-mode pins to force the SoC into recovery (serial download) boot mode; this specific hardware condition IS the prerequisite, per the description. No authentication, credentials, user interaction, or non-default software configuration is needed once the attacker reaches the board (CVSS PR:N/UI:N, AC:L). The exploitation is fundamentally LIMITED by the Physical attack vector (AV:P): it cannot be performed remotely or over the network, cannot be automated at scale, and depends on the attacker being able to open or reach the device enclosure. It applies to MaxiCharger Single units running firmware through V1.03.51. |
| Impact | The CVSS 4.0 base score is 8.6 (High/Critical range), driven by full compromise of confidentiality, integrity, and availability on both the vulnerable and subsequent systems. The single strongest limiting factor is the Physical attack vector (AV:P): exploitation requires the attacker to physically open or access the charger's board and manipulate recovery pins, so this is not remotely exploitable and cannot be automated at internet scale. Against that, attack complexity is Low (AC:L), no privileges or user interaction are needed once physical access is obtained (PR:N/UI:N), and public exploit code exists - meaning any capable attacker with device access can reliably reproduce it. There is no EPSS score, no CISA KEV listing, and no evidence of active exploitation in the provided data, which is consistent with a physical-access hardware flaw: real risk is targeted (evil-maid, supply-chain interdiction, stolen/second-hand units, or an owner attacking their own leased unit) rather than mass exploitation. Net assessment: genuinely serious for physically accessible deployments and for firmware/key confidentiality, but the physical prerequisite substantially narrows the realistic threat compared to a network-exploitable 8.6. |
| Exploit ScenarioDerived | An attacker with brief physical access to a wall- or pedestal-mounted MaxiCharger Single - for example a shared parking garage, a returned or resold unit, or an unattended public charger - opens the enclosure and straps the exposed i.MX6 recovery pins to force serial-download/recovery boot. Using the publicly available exploit method from CyberDanube, they stream their own code into memory to dump the stock firmware, extract embedded keys/credentials and configuration, and optionally write back trojanized firmware. Attack complexity is low once the case is open, so a knowledgeable attacker can complete extraction and implantation in a single visit. |
Get an e-mail when this CVE is exploited, patched or re-scored. Free account.
Alert meAnalysisAIv1 – Jul 21, 2026
Physical firmware compromise in Autel MaxiCharger Single EV charging stations (firmware through V1.03.51) lets an attacker with hands-on access exploit exposed NXP i.MX6 hardware recovery pins to boot unsigned, attacker-controlled code into memory. Once in recovery mode the attacker can dump, modify, or replace the device firmware and extract sensitive data such as credentials, keys, or configuration. Publicly available exploit code exists (published by CyberDanube), though there is no public exploit identified as being used in active campaigns and the flaw is not listed in CISA KEV.
RemediationAI
No vendor-released patch version is identified in the available data, and because the root cause is exposed hardware recovery pins on the NXP i.MX6, a firmware update alone may not fully close the recovery-mode path unless it also enables secure/signed boot fusing. Prioritize physical security as the primary compensating control: restrict and monitor physical access to deployed chargers (locked enclosures, tamper-evident seals, camera coverage, siting units in supervised locations), since the attack is impossible without hands-on access. Where the vendor supports it, enable NXP High Assurance Boot / secure boot and blow the corresponding security fuses so the processor rejects unsigned recovery images - note this is typically an irreversible provisioning step and can brick or lock devices if done incorrectly, and may not be field-configurable on already-deployed units. Assume that any charger which has been physically accessed by an untrusted party (e.g., second-hand, returned, or interdicted units) may have compromised firmware and extracted secrets, and rotate any device-stored credentials/keys accordingly. Consult the vendor and the CyberDanube advisory (https://cyberdanube.com/security-research/multiple-vulnerabilities-in-autel-maxi-charger/) for an official fixed firmware release before relying on a software patch.
Affected VersionsENISA
Affects your stack
Find out whether the stacks and servers you run are on an affected version.
Checking this CVE against your own stacks and servers is part of the Basic plan and up.
Technical ContextAI · show details
The MaxiCharger Single is built on an NXP i.MX6 application processor. Like most i.MX6 designs, the SoC supports a serial download / recovery boot mode selected by boot-mode strapping (BOOT_MODE/recovery pins). This vulnerability maps to CWE-1191 (improper access control on an on-chip debug/test or recovery interface): the recovery pins are physically exposed and the platform does not enforce High Assurance Boot (secure/signed boot) or otherwise lock the recovery path, so the processor will accept and execute an arbitrary bootloader/image streamed by the attacker instead of the vendor firmware. Because the recovery path bypasses normal firmware integrity checks, it gives the attacker code execution before any application-layer protections are active, which is why the CVSS 4.0 vector records both vulnerable-system and subsequent-system impacts (VC/VI/VA and SC/SI/SA all High).
Know when Maxicharger Single gets its next vulnerability
- Watch products and get an email when something new is published
- Check this CVE against your own stack and servers
- Exploit and PoC references, threat intelligence from 22 sources
No credit card · 7-day full trial
Severity by source
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H
Physical access to recovery pins (AV:P) with no auth/UI (PR:N/UI:N); code runs pre-boot bypassing firmware trust boundary (S:C) with full C/I/A loss.
Primary rating from Vendor (CyberDanube).
CVSS VectorVendor: CyberDanube
DescriptionCVE.org
Autel Maxi Charger Single firmware through V1.03.51 permits unrestricted access to the NXP i.MX6 recovery mode through exposed hardware recovery pins. An attacker with physical access can boot attacker-controlled code in memory and modify or extract firmware and other sensitive data.
Executive ViewAI
Autel MaxiCharger Single EV charging stations (firmware through V1.03.51) contain a physical firmware vulnerability that allows attackers to extract stored credentials and encryption keys; publicly available exploit code exists and no vendor patch is available, leaving all deployed units vulnerable to compromise. The risk is heightened in facilities with inadequate physical security and may expose credentials used to access backend systems or other network resources. Organizations must immediately evaluate physical safeguards and assess the sensitivity of any data stored on these devices.
No vendor-released patch identified at time of analysis. Interim mitigations: Restrict physical access via barriers, surveillance, and access logging; rotate all credentials stored on or accessed by affected chargers; implement tamper-detection mechanisms such as seals or physical sensors; segregate affected chargers from critical network systems using firewall policies; and consider disabling network connectivity for chargers in low-security environments until patched firmware is available.
Threat Intelligence Overview
How this decision was reached
The engine reads each signal below and applies a fixed list of rules from top to bottom. The first rule that matches sets the recommended action – like a statement, every line is shown.
What every action level means
SSVC AssessmentENISA
Priority Score
Attack Technique
Information disclosure occurs when an application unintentionally exposes sensitive data that aids attackers in reconnaissance or directly compromises security.
More in Maxicharger Single
View allUnauthenticated OS command injection in Autel MaxiCharger Single EV charging stations (firmware through V1.03.51) lets a
Remote code execution in Autel MaxiCharger Single EV charging stations (firmware through V1.03.51) lets unauthenticated
Authentication bypass in Autel MaxiCharger Single EV charging stations running firmware up to and including V1.03.51 let
Authentication bypass via hard-coded backdoor accounts in Autel MaxiCharger Single EV charging stations (firmware throug
OS command injection in Autel MaxiCharger Single EV charging stations (firmware through V1.03.51) lets a malicious or co
Remote code execution and denial of service in Autel MaxiCharger Single EV charging stations running firmware through V1
Physical compromise of Autel MaxiCharger Single EV charging stations running firmware through V1.03.51 is possible via a
EUVD-2026-46440
GHSA-wpf3-8j9v-2qg2
NVD
CVE.org
EPSS
VulDB
Exploit-DB