CVE-2025-13706VulnerabilityPublished 23 Dec 2025Updated 30 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-13706: Tencent PatrickStar · Deserialization of Untrusted Data

Affects Tencent PatrickStarSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

7.8High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 43% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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

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: 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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 23 Dec 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubtencent/PatrickStar`pkg:github/tencent/PatrickStar`Other threats	Affected =0.4.6	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should focus on restricting access to the merge_checkpoint endpoint to trusted users and networks only, using network segmentation and firewall rules. 2. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on all user-supplied data to prevent malicious serialized objects from being processed. 3. Employ application-layer security controls such as Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) configured to detect and block suspicious deserialization patterns. 4. Educate users to recognize and avoid phishing attempts or malicious files that could trigger exploitation. 5. Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual activity related to the merge_checkpoint endpoint, including unexpected deserialization attempts or privilege escalations. 6. Maintain up-to-date backups and develop an incident response plan tailored to potential ransomware or data breach scenarios. 7. Coordinate with Tencent for timely patch deployment once available and test patches in controlled environments before production rollout. 8. Consider deploying runtime application self-protection (RASP) tools that can detect and prevent exploitation attempts in real time. 9. Limit privileges of services running PatrickStar where feasible to reduce impact of potential compromise. 10. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on deserialization vulnerabilities and endpoint security.

Description

Tencent PatrickStar merge_checkpoint Deserialization of Untrusted Data Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Tencent PatrickStar. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must visit a malicious page or open a malicious file. The specific flaw exists within the merge_checkpoint endpoint. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of user-supplied data, which can result in deserialization of untrusted data. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of root. Was ZDI-CAN-27182.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-13706 can be severe. Given that exploitation leads to remote code execution with root privileges, attackers could gain complete control over affected systems, potentially leading to data breaches, service disruption, and lateral movement within networks. Confidentiality is at high risk as sensitive data could be exfiltrated. Integrity could be compromised through unauthorized modifications or insertion of malicious code. Availability may also be affected if attackers deploy ransomware or disrupt critical services. Organizations relying on Tencent PatrickStar for data processing or infrastructure management could face operational downtime and reputational damage. The requirement for user interaction somewhat limits exploitation scope but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments where users may be targeted with phishing or social engineering. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not preclude future attacks, especially as threat actors reverse-engineer the vulnerability. European entities in sectors such as finance, telecommunications, and critical infrastructure are particularly vulnerable due to the potential impact on essential services and sensitive data.

CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Object Injection (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 30 Dec 2025, 23:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-502

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats