ESPHome Threat Model

This document defines the trust boundary for the ESPHome repository — the Python compiler/CLI and the device firmware it generates — so that real security bugs can be told apart from defense-in-depth improvements. It gives contributors, reviewers, and security researchers a clear answer to one question: does this issue let an unauthenticated attacker do something they shouldn't?

Related documents:

• Deployment guidance for operators: https://esphome.io/guides/security_best_practices/
• The Device Builder dashboard (the web UI, its authentication, ingress, Origin/Host gates, and peer-link pairing) lives in a separate repository and has its own threat model. If your report concerns any of that, please read and report there instead: https://github.com/esphome/device-builder/blob/main/docs/THREAT_MODEL.md

The trust boundary

For this repository there are two trusted inputs by design:

1. The configuration. Anyone who can supply or edit a YAML config is trusted (see below).
2. Authenticated peers of a running device — clients holding the device's API/OTA encryption key, API password, OTA password, or web server credentials.

The security boundary is therefore unauthenticated network traffic vs. those trusted inputs. A bug that lets an unauthenticated attacker cross it is a security bug.

Config authors are host-equivalent by design

Anyone who can supply or edit a configuration is trusted with full code execution on the host that runs esphome, on purpose. This is what the product does, not a flaw. A config author can already, through fully supported features:

• Run arbitrary Python at validation/compile time via external_components: (and other component-import mechanisms) — ESPHome imports those packages as ordinary Python.
• Run arbitrary shell commands through the compile/validate/flash toolchain that ESPHome invokes as subprocesses.
• Read and write arbitrary files reachable by the process (e.g. via !include, packages:, dashboard_import:, and generated build output).

Because of this, a malicious config author is equivalent to shell access on the host running the build.

What is not a security vulnerability

If exploiting an issue requires the ability to supply or edit configuration, it is not a vulnerability in ESPHome, because that ability already grants host code execution. This explicitly includes, among others:

• Template / expression injection in substitutions or any YAML string value (e.g. Jinja ${...} evaluation reaching Python internals). This grants no capability a config author lacks.
• !include / packages: / dashboard_import: reading or fetching content from surprising or remote locations.
• The validator or compiler crashing or behaving unexpectedly on adversarial YAML.
• ESPHome running as root in the official container — that is the documented deployment posture, reachable by the same caller through the features above.

These do not warrant a CVE or coordinated disclosure. Hardening in these areas (for example, sandboxing template evaluation as least-surprise defense-in-depth) is welcome as a normal enhancement PR, framed as cleanliness rather than a security fix — not as a vulnerability remediation.

What we do defend

These are security bugs in this repo, and we want to hear about them privately:

• Memory-safety or protocol bugs in the generated device firmware that are remotely triggerable over the network (native API, web server, OTA, BLE, captive portal, etc.) without valid credentials.
• Authentication or encryption bypass on the device — reaching API calls, OTA updates, or the web server without the configured key/password.
• Flaws that weaken the device's API or OTA encryption (Noise), OTA auth, or web server auth below their documented guarantees.

The web server is an open HTTP API by design

The web_server component exposes a plain HTTP interface for viewing and controlling entities, and, when the web_server OTA platform is enabled, for uploading firmware at /update. Its only access controls are the optional web_server auth: credentials and the network the device sits on.

When auth: is not configured, every endpoint is reachable by any client that can reach the device. This is intentional; enabling web_server without auth: is choosing an open control surface, in the same way that running native OTA without a password leaves OTA open. The API is documented and is meant to be called by other devices, scripts, and pages.

As defense-in-depth, the web server checks the Origin header on browser requests to its entity control and state endpoints: a request whose Origin does not match the address the device is served on is rejected, and the allowed_origins option widens that list. This blocks the common "confused deputy" (CSRF) case where a page the operator visits drives the device through their browser. It is not an authentication boundary: it only constrains browsers. Any client that omits the Origin header — curl, scripts, or other non-browser callers on the same network — reaches every endpoint exactly as before. The check also does not cover the web OTA /update endpoint. The device performs no CSRF-token or Referer validation. The following are therefore not vulnerabilities in this repository:

• Requests without an Origin header (for example curl) reaching the control endpoints, whether or not web_server auth: is set.
• Requests from an origin the operator added to allowed_origins.
• Cross-origin or CSRF firmware upload through the web OTA endpoint (/update) when web OTA is enabled without web_server auth:. The /update endpoint is not covered by the Origin check; this is the same exposure as running OTA without a password.

The supported defenses are web_server auth:, protecting OTA (a web password or a native OTA password), and keeping devices on a trusted, segmented network. See the security best practices guide linked above.

What remains in scope is bypassing web_server auth: when it is configured, and any memory-safety or protocol bug in the server reachable without credentials.

This section documents the current design and scope; it is not a judgment that the design is optimal or that it will not change.

OTA update encryption

The esphome OTA platform optionally encrypts updates with the same Noise NNpsk0 pattern the native API uses; one key protects the device. A device whose api: block has an encryption key, static in the YAML or provisioned at runtime, compiles in the transport and offers it on every OTA connection once it holds a key, so an uploader presenting that key gets the guarantees below even without an ota: encryption: block; only that block makes the device require encryption. The guarantees are: the firmware image is confidential in transit, the uploader is authenticated by the pre-shared key, and the plaintext negotiation preceding the handshake is bound into the handshake prologue, so stripping or tampering with it fails the first MAC. With ota: encryption: configured both ends fail closed with no override: the device refuses plaintext uploads, and the CLI refuses to send plaintext when a key is configured. Without that block the CLI tries a static api key when the device offers and, until 2027.3.0, falls back to plaintext with a warning when the offer is missing or the handshake fails; a runtime provisioned key never reaches the CLI, so those uploads stay plaintext.

Defeating any of that without the key is in scope: a device that requires encryption accepting a plaintext or downgraded upload, getting past the MAC, or recovering image contents from captured traffic.

The following are not vulnerabilities, by design:

• Plaintext OTA on a device with no ota: encryption: block, including one that offers encryption because it has an api key. That is the documented default, authenticated (if at all) by the OTA password. An uploader that takes the offer skips the password; the key authenticates it. With a runtime provisioned key and no provisioning: window, whoever provisions the key gains that upload path too; validation warns about the pair.
• The CLI plaintext fallback until 2027.3.0: without ota: encryption: an active attacker who strips the offer or breaks the handshake can make a keyed CLI upload plaintext, with the pre-existing plaintext exposure. A device that requires encryption still refuses that upload.
• The enablement window: firmware built with a static api key already offers encryption, so turning on ota: encryption: is itself an encrypted upload. Older firmware needs one last plaintext upload of an offering build, with the pre-existing plaintext exposure.
• The web OTA /update endpoint alongside encryption. With the web_server or prometheus component the shared listener is always up, so the endpoint stays reachable and validation warns about that combination; captive_portal: alone brings the listener up only for the fallback AP window, which is the intended recovery path, so that is not warned about.
• CLI retry behavior on transport or MAC failures; every attempt renegotiates a fresh handshake with fresh ephemerals, so retrying does not weaken authentication.

Explicitly out of scope

• Local attackers who already have shell access on the host that runs esphome.
• Supply-chain attacks against ESPHome or its dependencies.
• Operator-supplied hostile YAML (covered above — config authoring is trusted).
• Attacks that require an already-authenticated device peer (someone who already holds the API key / OTA / web credentials).
• Access to the device web server or its web OTA endpoint by non-browser clients (those that send no Origin header). The web server is an open HTTP API by design (see above); browser cross-origin requests are blocked by default, but the real controls are web_server auth: and network isolation.
• Anything in the dashboard / device-builder — report that in its own repository (linked at the top).
• Deployments where the operator removed protections or exposed credentials. See the security best practices guide: https://esphome.io/guides/security_best_practices/

Reporting a vulnerability

If you believe you've found an issue that crosses the unauthenticated boundary above, please report it privately via GitHub Security Advisories rather than a public issue. For issues that require config-write access, please review this document first — they are very likely out of scope by design. For dashboard / device-builder issues, report against that repository and consult its threat model (linked at the top).