VulnerabilityPublished 7 Nov 2025Updated 10 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-12906: Google Chrome · Inappropriate Implementation

Affects Google ChromeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 140.0.7339.80 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 140.0.7339.80

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Upgrade Google Chrome to 140.0.7339.80.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Google Chrome	Affected =140.0.7339.80 <140.0.7339.80	Fixed in 140.0.7339.80

AI-suggested

Update Google Chrome to version 140.0.7339.80 or later as soon as it becomes available to ensure the vulnerability is patched.
Until patching is possible, implement browser policies to restrict or monitor permission prompts and suspicious UI behaviors.
Educate users to recognize legitimate browser permission requests and be cautious of unexpected or unusual UI elements, especially on untrusted websites.
Employ web filtering solutions to block access to known malicious or suspicious sites that could host crafted HTML pages exploiting this vulnerability.
Use endpoint security solutions capable of detecting phishing and social engineering attempts that may leverage UI spoofing.
7. Consider deploying browser extensions or security tools that enhance UI integrity verification or alert users to potential spoofing attempts.

Description

Inappropriate implementation in Permissions in Google Chrome prior to 140.0.7339.80 allowed a remote attacker to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk primarily through social engineering and phishing attacks that exploit UI spoofing to deceive users. Confidentiality could be compromised if users are tricked into granting permissions or divulging sensitive information. Availability impact is low but possible if spoofed UI elements interfere with normal browser functionality. Integrity is not affected. Organizations relying heavily on Chrome for web access, especially those handling sensitive data or financial transactions, may see increased risk of targeted phishing campaigns leveraging this flaw. The need for user interaction limits automated exploitation but does not eliminate risk, especially in sectors with high user exposure such as finance, healthcare, and government. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat but underscores the importance of proactive patching and user training to mitigate potential attacks.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Nov 2025, 00:23 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats