VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-27451: Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4 · Observable Response Discrepancy

Affects Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% 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:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

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

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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 3 Jul 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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
Endress+Hauser Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should implement uniform error messages for all failed login attempts, ensuring that responses do not reveal whether a username exists. This can be achieved by standardizing authentication failure messages to a generic text such as 'Invalid username or password.' Additionally, implementing account lockout or throttling mechanisms after a defined number of failed login attempts can reduce the risk of automated username enumeration and brute force attacks. Network-level protections such as Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or Intrusion Detection/Prevention Systems (IDS/IPS) should be configured to detect and block suspicious login patterns indicative of enumeration attempts. Organizations should also monitor authentication logs for unusual activity and consider multi-factor authentication (MFA) where feasible to add an additional security layer. Since no patches are currently available, these compensating controls are critical. Finally, organizations should engage with Endress+Hauser for updates and apply patches promptly once released.

Description

For failed login attempts, the application returns different error messages depending on whether the login failed due to an incorrect password or a non-existing username. This allows an attacker to guess usernames until they find an existing one.

Impact

For European organizations using the Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4 device, this vulnerability primarily poses an information disclosure risk that can facilitate further attacks. The ability to enumerate valid usernames can lead to targeted brute force or credential stuffing attacks, increasing the risk of unauthorized access. Given that Endress+Hauser products are commonly used in industrial automation and process control environments, exploitation could indirectly impact operational technology (OT) environments if attackers gain access through compromised credentials. This could lead to operational disruptions, safety risks, or data breaches. The confidentiality impact is limited to username disclosure; however, the strategic importance of these devices in critical infrastructure sectors such as manufacturing, energy, and utilities in Europe elevates the potential consequences of chained attacks. Organizations in these sectors must be vigilant, as attackers often leverage such reconnaissance vulnerabilities as initial footholds. The lack of required authentication or user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing the likelihood of automated scanning and enumeration attempts.

CWE-204Observable Response Discrepancy (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product provides different responses to incoming requests in a way that reveals internal state information to an unauthorized actor outside of the intended control sphere.
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.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
ICMP IP Total Length Field Probe (opens in a new tab)
ICMP IP 'ID' Field Error Message Probe (opens in a new tab)
Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Footprinting (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 3 Jul 2025, 11:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-204

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats