VulnerabilityPublished 13 Dec 2025Updated 15 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-14606: Tiny RDM · Deserialization

Affects Tiny RDMSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.3 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
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.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 13 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 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
GitHubtiny-craft/tiny-rdm`pkg:github/tiny-craft/tiny-rdm`Other threats	Affected =1.2.0 =1.2.1 =1.2.2 =1.2.3 =1.2.4 =1.2.5	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

2) Employ strict input validation and sanitization on any data processed by the pickle.loads function or related deserialization routines to prevent malicious payloads. 3) Monitor network traffic and application logs for unusual deserialization activity or anomalies indicating exploitation attempts. 4) Apply the principle of least privilege to limit the permissions of processes running Tiny RDM, minimizing potential damage from exploitation. 5) Consider deploying application-layer firewalls or intrusion detection systems with signatures targeting deserialization attacks. 6) Maintain an active vulnerability management process to promptly apply patches once the vendor releases a fix. 7) Engage with the vendor or community to encourage timely remediation and share threat intelligence related to this vulnerability.

Description

A security vulnerability has been detected in tiny-rdm Tiny RDM up to 1.2.5. Affected by this vulnerability is the function pickle.loads of the file pickle_convert.go of the component Pickle Decoding. The manipulation leads to deserialization. The attack can be initiated remotely. A high degree of complexity is needed for the attack. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed publicly and may be used. The project was informed of the problem early through an issue report but has not responded yet.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability is currently low due to the difficulty of exploitation and limited impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. However, organizations using Tiny RDM in sensitive or critical environments could face risks of unauthorized code execution or data manipulation if the vulnerability is exploited. This could lead to service disruptions or data integrity issues, particularly in sectors relying on Tiny RDM for remote device management or related functions. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk, but the public disclosure increases the likelihood of future exploit development. Organizations without strict network segmentation or input validation may be more vulnerable. The impact is also influenced by the extent of Tiny RDM deployment within European industries and the criticality of the systems involved.

Summary

CVE-2025-14606 identifies a security vulnerability in the Tiny RDM software, specifically in versions 1.2.0 through 1.2.5. The vulnerability arises from unsafe deserialization in the pickle.loads function located in the pickle_convert.go file, part of the Pickle Decoding component. Deserialization vulnerabilities occur when untrusted data is processed by deserialization functions, potentially allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code or manipulate program state. In this case, the vulnerability can be triggered remotely without user interaction or authentication but requires a high degree of complexity and low privileges, making exploitation difficult. The vulnerability has been publicly disclosed, but no known exploits are currently active in the wild. The vendor has been notified but has not yet issued a patch or response. The CVSS 4.0 vector indicates network attack vector (AV:N), high attack complexity (AC:H), no privileges required (PR:L), no user interaction (UI:N), and low impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (VC:L, VI:L, VA:L). This suggests that while the vulnerability is exploitable remotely, the potential damage and ease of exploitation are limited. The lack of a patch means organizations must rely on mitigation strategies until an official fix is released.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…