CVE-2025-12896VulnerabilityPublished 7 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-12896: Solidigm™ D5-P5316, D7-P5510, D7-P5520/D7-P5620, D5-P5430, D5-P5336 · Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts

Affects Solidigm™ D5-P5316, D7-P5510, D7-P5520/D7-P5620, D5-P5430, D5-P5336Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.4 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.4Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

1. Immediately update the firmware on all affected Solidigm SSD models to the patched versions ACV10360, JCV10501, 9CV10490, 6DV10341/6CV10241, or 5CV10326 or later. 2. Implement strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized local or physical access to storage devices, including locked server rooms, surveillance, and access logging. 3. Enforce role-based access controls and limit administrative privileges to trusted personnel only. 4. Regularly audit and monitor access to storage devices to detect any anomalous or unauthorized attempts. 5. Consider deploying full disk encryption solutions that provide an additional layer of protection beyond device-level authentication. 6. Educate staff on the risks of insider threats and the importance of securing physical access to critical hardware. 7. Maintain an inventory of affected devices and track firmware versions to ensure compliance with patching policies. 8. Coordinate with Solidigm support for any additional security advisories or updates related to this vulnerability.

Description

Improper resource management in firmware of some Solidigm DC Products may allow an attacker with local or physical access to gain un-authorized access to a locked storage device.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential unauthorized disclosure of sensitive data stored on affected Solidigm SSDs. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure that rely on these SSDs for secure data storage could face significant confidentiality breaches if attackers gain physical or local access to the devices. The vulnerability does not affect data integrity or availability directly but compromises the trustworthiness of data confidentiality. Given the requirement for local high-privilege access, the threat is more pronounced in environments with less stringent physical security or where insider threats are a concern. The impact is heightened in data centers or enterprise environments where these SSDs are deployed at scale, as a single compromised device could expose large volumes of sensitive information. Additionally, the lack of known exploits in the wild suggests that proactive patching can effectively mitigate risk before widespread exploitation occurs.

CWE-307Improper Restriction of Excessive Authentication Attempts (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not implement sufficient measures to prevent multiple failed authentication attempts within a short time frame.
Architecture and Design
Common protection mechanisms include: Disconnecting the user after a small number of failed attempts; Implementing a timeout; Locking out a targeted account; Requiring a computational task on the user's part.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Dictionary-based Password Attack (opens in a new tab)
Password Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Password Spraying (opens in a new tab)
Credential Stuffing (opens in a new tab)
Use of Known Kerberos Credentials (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

solidigm.com/support-page/support-security.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Nov 2025, 21:07 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-307

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats