CVE-2025-26858VulnerabilityPublished 1 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-26858: Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70 · Improper Input Validation

Affects Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 50% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 1 Dec 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 26 Oct 2026.

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
Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70	Affected =1.6.9	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Apply vendor patches immediately once they become available to address the buffer overflow vulnerability. 2. Until patches are released, implement strict network segmentation to isolate the DIRIS Digiware M-70 devices from untrusted networks, especially the internet. 3. Use firewalls or intrusion prevention systems (IPS) to restrict Modbus TCP traffic only to authorized management stations and control systems. 4. Monitor network traffic for anomalous or malformed Modbus packets that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5. Employ network access control (NAC) to limit device connectivity to known and trusted hosts. 6. Regularly update and audit device firmware and configurations to ensure compliance with security best practices. 7. Educate operational technology (OT) personnel on the risks of unauthenticated network protocols and the importance of input validation. 8. Consider deploying anomaly detection solutions tailored for industrial protocols to detect early signs of exploitation. 9. Maintain an incident response plan that includes scenarios involving denial of service on critical monitoring devices. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on network-level controls specific to Modbus TCP and operational technology environments.

Description

A buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the Modbus TCP functionality of Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70 1.6.9. A specially crafted set of network packets can lead to denial of service. An attacker can send a sequence of unauthenticated packets to trigger this vulnerability.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly those in the energy, manufacturing, and critical infrastructure sectors, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to operational availability. The Socomec DIRIS Digiware M-70 is used for energy monitoring and management, and disruption can lead to loss of visibility into power consumption, potential mismanagement of energy resources, and cascading effects on industrial processes. A denial of service could cause temporary outages or degraded performance of monitoring systems, impacting decision-making and potentially leading to financial losses or safety hazards. Since the vulnerability can be exploited remotely without authentication, attackers could leverage it to disrupt operations from outside the network perimeter. This risk is heightened in environments where network segmentation or access controls are insufficient. The lack of impact on confidentiality and integrity reduces the risk of data breaches or manipulation, but availability disruptions in critical systems can still have severe consequences. European organizations with interconnected industrial control systems and reliance on Modbus TCP protocols must prioritize addressing this vulnerability to maintain resilience against cyber threats.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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 8 Dec 2025, 17:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats