VulnerabilityPublished 17 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-14303: MSI Intel 600 chipset motherboard · Protection Mechanism Failure

Affects MSI Intel 600 chipset motherboardSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.0 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.0High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Physical
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable system. Physical interaction may be brief (e.g., evil maid attack) or persistent.
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
MSI Intel 600 chipset motherboard	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Enforce strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized access to systems with affected MSI Intel 600 chipset motherboards.
Disable unused PCIe slots or ports in BIOS/UEFI settings to reduce the attack surface for DMA-capable devices.
Implement hardware inventory and asset management to quickly identify and isolate affected systems.
Use chassis intrusion detection mechanisms where available to alert on unauthorized physical access.
Monitor system boot processes for anomalies that could indicate exploitation attempts.
Coordinate with MSI and Intel for timely firmware or BIOS updates addressing the vulnerability and prioritize their deployment once available.
Consider deploying IOMMU or equivalent hardware protections at the OS or hypervisor level if supported and configurable.
Educate staff about the risks of physical access attacks and enforce strict visitor policies in sensitive areas.
For high-security environments, consider hardware replacement if patching is delayed or unavailable.
Maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to mitigate potential damage from exploitation.

Description

Certain motherboard models developed by MSI has a Protection Mechanism Failure vulnerability. Because IOMMU was not properly enabled, unauthenticated physical attackers can use a DMA-capable PCIe device to read and write arbitrary physical memory before the OS kernel and its security features are loaded.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-14303 is substantial, especially for entities relying on MSI Intel 600 chipset motherboards in environments where physical security may be challenging, such as data centers, office environments, or shared facilities. Successful exploitation can lead to complete system compromise, including unauthorized data access, persistent malware implantation at a low level, and disruption of critical services. This is particularly concerning for sectors like finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, where confidentiality and availability are paramount. The vulnerability's exploitation bypasses OS-level protections, making traditional endpoint security solutions ineffective. The requirement for physical access limits remote exploitation but increases risk in scenarios involving insider threats or inadequate physical security controls. The absence of patches means organizations must rely on compensating controls until a fix is available, increasing operational risk and potential downtime.

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 24 Dec 2025, 04:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats