CVE-2025-26408VulnerabilityPublished 11 Feb 2025Updated 3 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-26408: Wattsense Bridge · On-Chip Debug and Test Interface With Improper Access Control

Affects Wattsense BridgeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% 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:N

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

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Feb 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Wattsense Wattsense Bridge	Affected *	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Mitigation should focus on enhancing physical security controls around Wattsense Bridge devices to prevent unauthorized access to the PCB and JTAG interface. This includes deploying devices in locked enclosures, using tamper-evident seals, and restricting physical access to authorized personnel only. Organizations should conduct regular physical inspections to detect signs of tampering. Network segmentation can limit the impact of compromised devices by isolating them from critical systems. Monitoring device behavior for anomalies indicative of firmware tampering or debugging activity is recommended. Since no patches are currently available, engaging with the vendor for firmware updates or hardware revisions is important. Additionally, organizations should consider deploying complementary security controls such as hardware security modules or secure boot mechanisms if supported by the device. Documenting and enforcing strict access policies for device maintenance and repair activities will further reduce risk. Finally, maintaining an inventory of deployed devices and their physical locations aids in risk assessment and incident response.

Description

The JTAG interface of Wattsense Bridge devices can be accessed with physical access to the PCB. After connecting to the interface, full access to the device is possible. This enables an attacker to extract information, modify and debug the device's firmware. All known versions are affected.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in sectors relying on building automation and energy management, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Unauthorized firmware modification could lead to manipulation of energy consumption data, disruption of building climate control, or unauthorized access to networked systems connected via the Wattsense Bridge. Confidentiality breaches could expose sensitive operational data or credentials stored on the device. Although exploitation requires physical access, many European facilities have distributed deployments where physical security may be less stringent, increasing the risk. The integrity compromise could enable attackers to create persistent backdoors or disrupt normal device operation, potentially affecting business continuity. The lack of availability impact reduces the risk of outright denial-of-service, but the ability to modify firmware and extract data still presents a serious threat to operational security and privacy compliance, including GDPR considerations for data protection.

CWE-1191On-Chip Debug and Test Interface With Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The chip does not implement or does not correctly perform access control to check whether users are authorized to access internal registers and test modes through the physical debug/test interface.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
If feasible, the manufacturer should disable the JTAG interface or implement authentication and authorization for the JTAG interface. If authentication logic is added, it should be resistant to timing attacks. Security-sensitive data stored in registers, such as keys, etc. should be cleared when entering debug mode.
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
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Nov 2025, 00:22 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1191

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats