CVE-2025-15573VulnerabilityPublished 12 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-15573: SolaX Power Pocket WiFi 3.0 · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects SolaX Power Pocket WiFi 3.0Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.4 Critical : upgrade to 3.022.03 as a priority.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.4Critical

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.022.03, 1.009.02, 1.005.05 +2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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: 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 12 Feb 2026
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

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SolaX PowerPocket WiFi 3.0	Affected <3.022.03	Fixed in 3.022.03
SolaX PowerPocket WiFi+LAN	Affected <1.009.02	Fixed in 1.009.02
SolaX PowerPocket WiFi+4GM	Affected <1.005.05	Fixed in 1.005.05
SolaX PowerPocket WiFi+LAN 2.0	Affected <006.06	Fixed in 006.06
SolaX PowerPocket WiFi 4.0	Affected <003.03	Fixed in 003.03

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation involves updating all affected SolaX Power Pocket WiFi 3.0 devices to firmware version 3.022.03 or later once the vendor releases a patch that properly validates server certificates. 2. If you cannot patch yet, implement network-level controls such as strict firewall rules to restrict MQTT traffic to only trusted IP addresses and ports. 3. Deploy network intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) capable of detecting anomalous MQTT traffic or TLS interception attempts. 4. Use TLS interception detection tools to identify man-in-the-middle attacks on MQTT connections. 5. Enforce network segmentation to isolate IoT devices from general enterprise networks, limiting exposure to potential attackers. 6. Monitor device logs and MQTT traffic for unusual command patterns or connection attempts. 7. Engage with the vendor for timely updates and security advisories. 8. Consider deploying additional endpoint security solutions on devices where feasible to detect unauthorized command execution. 9. Educate network administrators and security teams about the risks of improper certificate validation and the importance of secure MQTT communications.

Description

The affected devices do not validate the server certificate when connecting to the SolaX Cloud MQTTS server hosted in the Alibaba Cloud (mqtt001.solaxcloud.com, TCP 8883). This allows attackers in a man-in-the-middle position to act as the legitimate MQTT server and issue arbitrary commands to devices.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2025-15573 is severe for organizations using SolaX Power Pocket WiFi 3.0 devices in their infrastructure. Exploitation allows attackers to impersonate the cloud MQTT server and send arbitrary commands to devices, compromising device integrity and potentially causing unauthorized operational changes or disruptions. This can lead to loss of control over connected devices, data manipulation, and potential cascading failures in systems relying on these devices for connectivity or control, such as renewable energy installations or smart grid components. Confidentiality is also at risk since attackers can intercept and manipulate data streams. The vulnerability's network-based attack vector and lack of required authentication increase the likelihood of exploitation, especially in environments with insufficient network segmentation or monitoring. Organizations may face operational downtime, financial losses, and reputational damage if attackers leverage this vulnerability. Furthermore, the critical nature of the flaw could make these devices attractive targets for nation-state actors or cybercriminals aiming to disrupt energy infrastructure or IoT ecosystems.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

r.sec-consult.com/solax (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Feb 2026, 14:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats