CVE-2025-20067VulnerabilityPublished 12 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-20067: Intel(R) CSME and Intel(R) SPS · Information Disclosure

Affects Intel(R) CSME and Intel(R) SPSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system 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 through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the Subsequent 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.
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 12 Aug 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 2026-10-26.

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should: 1) Monitor and restrict privileged access rigorously, employing strong access controls and auditing to detect unauthorized privilege escalations. 2) Apply Intel's firmware updates and patches as soon as they become available, as firmware-level vulnerabilities require vendor-supplied fixes. 3) Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions to monitor for suspicious local activity indicative of exploitation attempts. 4) Use hardware-based security features such as Intel Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) and secure boot to reduce the risk of firmware tampering. 5) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on privilege escalation and side-channel attack vectors. 6) Segment critical systems and limit local administrative access to reduce the attack surface. 7) Educate system administrators about the risks of timing side-channel attacks and the importance of maintaining strict privilege hygiene.

Description

Observable timing discrepancy in firmware for some Intel(R) CSME and Intel(R) SPS may allow a privileged user to potentially enable information disclosure via local access.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily in environments where Intel-based systems with CSME and SPS firmware are deployed, especially in sectors requiring high security such as finance, government, defense, and critical infrastructure. The ability for a privileged local user to extract sensitive information could lead to leakage of cryptographic keys, firmware secrets, or other protected data, potentially enabling further attacks or espionage. Organizations with multi-tenant environments or shared infrastructure may face increased risk if attackers gain privileged access to one tenant's system. The impact is heightened in regulated industries subject to strict data protection laws like GDPR, where unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information can lead to compliance violations and reputational damage. However, the requirement for privileged local access limits the threat to insiders or attackers who have already escalated privileges, reducing the likelihood of widespread remote exploitation.

References

intel.com/content/www/us/en/security-center/advisory/intel-sa-01280.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…