CVE-2020-29440: Tesla Model X vehicles before 2020-11-23 do not perform certificate validation during an attempt to pair a new key fob with the body control
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 18/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.21% (FIRST EPSS).
- Physical access to the device is required. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.
Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Tesla Model X vehicles before 2020-11-23 do not perform certificate validation during an attempt to pair a new key fob with the body control module (BCM). This allows an attacker (who is inside a vehicle, or is otherwise able to send data over the CAN bus) to start and drive the vehicle with a spoofed key fob.
- Published
- Nov 30, 2020
- Updated
- Jun 16, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.2% · 11th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-295
Report tools
Action score
18
Monitor
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 18 / 40 · 4.6 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.2%
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- No fixed version yet
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens
Noroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| tesla | model x firmware | cpe:2.3:o:tesla:model_x_firmware |
| tesla | model x | cpe:2.3:h:tesla:model_x |
Check your site's encryption
This vulnerability is about certificate validation or weak cryptography. The free SSL checker tests your certificate, enabled TLS versions and weak ciphers.
Run the SSL checkAffected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- tesla model x firmwarebefore 2020-11-23
Same product
tesla: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2020-29438Tesla Model X vehicles before 2020-11-23 have key fobs that accept firmware updates without signature verification.26Monitor
- CVE-2020-29439Tesla Model X vehicles before 2020-11-23 have key fobs that rely on five VIN digits for the authentication needed for a body control module 18Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
No commit or PR link among the references.
Credits
All researchersFinders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.
No credits in the CNA record.
Variant candidates
Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.
No nightly-computed relations.
Chain candidates
An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.
—
Bug bounty scope
The product’s vendor appears in a public program. Matched by name; verify the scope text in the program.
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Physical access to the device is required.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- none
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- none
- Attack vector
- Physical
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- None
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- None
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-295 · Improper Certificate ValidationCVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
nvd-primary
Root cause
A certificate validation error is silently swallowed instead of terminating the connection. Often, code added for a test environment makes its way into production.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-295 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
override fun checkServerTrusted(chain: Array<X509Certificate>, type: String) {
// Left empty for the test environment
}Fixed
val client = OkHttpClient.Builder()
.certificatePinner(
CertificatePinner.Builder()
.add("api.sirius.example", "sha256/…")
.build()
).build()Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log
No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.