CVE-2025-25735VulnerabilityPublished 26 Aug 2025Updated 22 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-25735: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.6 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.6Medium

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

Attack Vector: Physical
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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

Since no patches are currently available, European organizations should implement layered mitigation strategies. First, restrict physical and local access to RSUs by enforcing strict access controls and monitoring. Deploy network segmentation to isolate RSUs from broader enterprise or public networks, reducing the risk of remote compromise. Implement continuous integrity monitoring of RSU firmware and configuration to detect unauthorized changes promptly. Use hardware security modules or trusted platform modules (TPMs) where possible to enhance device security. Engage with Kapsch TrafficCom for firmware updates or security advisories and plan for timely patch deployment once available. Conduct regular security audits and penetration tests focusing on RSU environments. Additionally, consider deploying anomaly detection systems on traffic management networks to identify unusual behavior indicative of firmware tampering. Finally, maintain incident response readiness specific to transportation infrastructure threats.

Description

Kapsch TrafficCom RIS-9160 & RIS-9260 Roadside Units (RSUs) v3.2.0.829.23, v3.8.0.1119.42, and v4.6.0.1211.28 were discovered to lack SPI Protected Range Registers (PRRs), allowing attackers with software running on the system to modify SPI flash in real-time.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-25735 is primarily on the integrity of roadside traffic infrastructure. RSUs are integral to traffic management, vehicle communication, and safety systems. Unauthorized modification of firmware or configuration could lead to incorrect traffic signal timings, false traffic data reporting, or compromised vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. This could degrade traffic flow efficiency, increase accident risks, or enable further cyberattacks on connected transportation networks. While confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the integrity compromise could have cascading effects on public safety and trust in smart city infrastructure. Organizations responsible for traffic management, public transportation authorities, and critical infrastructure operators in Europe must consider this risk seriously. The medium CVSS score reflects the moderate likelihood and impact, but the strategic importance of these systems elevates the operational risk. The lack of known exploits provides a window for proactive mitigation before attackers potentially develop exploitation techniques.

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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Oct 2025, 15:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1233

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats