CVE-2025-25734VulnerabilityPublished 26 Aug 2025Updated 22 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-25734: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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 component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
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: 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 26 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 2026-10-25.

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

AI-suggested

1. Restrict physical access to RSUs by securing roadside cabinets and enclosures to prevent unauthorized boot access. 2. Limit network exposure of RSU management interfaces, employing network segmentation and strict firewall rules to reduce remote attack surfaces. 3. Monitor RSU boot logs and firmware integrity to detect unauthorized EFI shell access or modifications. 4. Implement hardware-based security features such as Secure Boot and Trusted Platform Module (TPM) if supported by the RSUs to prevent unauthorized boot code execution. 5. Engage with Kapsch TrafficCom for timely firmware updates or patches addressing this vulnerability and plan for prompt deployment once available. 6. Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on boot process security of RSUs. 7. Develop incident response plans specific to RSU compromise scenarios to minimize operational impact. 8. Consider deploying intrusion detection systems (IDS) that can monitor unusual network or device behavior indicative of exploitation attempts.

Description

CVE-2025-25734 is a vulnerability affecting Kapsch TrafficCom RIS-9160 and RIS-9260 Roadside Units (RSUs) in specific firmware versions. It involves an unauthenticated EFI shell accessible during the boot process, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code or escalate privileges without any authentication or user interaction. The vulnerability impacts confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the affected devices. Exploitation requires physical or network-level access to the device's boot environment, which is typically protected but may be exposed in certain deployment scenarios. No known exploits are currently in the wild, and no patches have been published yet. The CVSS score is 6.8 (medium severity), reflecting the significant impact but limited attack vector. European organizations relying on these RSUs for traffic management and intelligent transportation systems could face operational disruptions, data compromise, or unauthorized control. Countries with extensive deployments of Kapsch TrafficCom infrastructure, especially those with critical transport networks, are at higher risk. Mitigation involves restricting physical and network access to RSUs, monitoring boot processes, and applying vendor updates once available.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability threatens the integrity and availability of critical traffic management infrastructure. RSUs are integral to intelligent transportation systems, enabling vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, traffic monitoring, and safety applications. Exploitation could allow attackers to manipulate traffic signals, disrupt data collection, or implant persistent malware, potentially causing traffic congestion, accidents, or loss of public trust. Confidentiality breaches could expose sensitive traffic data or system configurations. Given the reliance on these RSUs in urban and highway environments, successful attacks could have cascading effects on transportation safety and efficiency. Additionally, disruption of these systems could impact emergency response coordination and smart city operations. The medium severity rating suggests a significant but not catastrophic risk, contingent on attacker access to the boot environment. European entities managing or operating these RSUs must consider the operational and reputational risks associated with this vulnerability.

CWE-1233Security-Sensitive Hardware Controls with Missing Lock Bit Protection (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product uses a register lock bit protection mechanism, but it does not ensure that the lock bit prevents modification of system registers or controls that perform changes to important hardware system configuration.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Testing
Security lock bit protections must be reviewed for design inconsistency and common weaknesses.; Security lock programming flow and lock properties must be tested in pre-silicon and post-silicon testing.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploitation of Improperly Controlled Registers (opens in a new tab)
Configuration/Environment Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Oct 2025, 15:23 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1233, CWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats