CVE-2025-27458VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-27458: Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4 · Weak Cryptography

Affects Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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 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. Network Segmentation: Isolate MEAC300-FNADE4 devices on dedicated, secured network segments with strict access controls to limit exposure to untrusted networks. 2. Use VPN or Encrypted Tunnels: Since VNC communication is unencrypted, implement VPNs or secure tunnels (e.g., SSH tunnels) to protect VNC traffic from interception. 3. Disable VNC Access: Where possible, disable VNC access to the device or restrict it to trusted management hosts. 4. Strong Password Policies: Enforce strong, complex passwords for VNC authentication to increase the difficulty of password derivation. 5. Monitor Network Traffic: Deploy intrusion detection systems to monitor for suspicious VNC traffic or repeated authentication attempts. 6. Vendor Engagement: Engage with Endress+Hauser for updates or patches addressing this vulnerability and plan for timely deployment once available. 7. Alternative Access Methods: Consider using more secure remote access methods that employ modern cryptographic protocols. 8. User Training: Educate network and security teams about the risks of unencrypted VNC and the importance of secure remote access configurations.

Description

The VNC authentication mechanism bases on a challenge-response system where both server and client use the same password for encryption. The challenge is sent from the server to the client, is encrypted by the client and sent back. The server does the same encryption locally and if the responses match it is prooven that the client knows the correct password. Since all VNC communication is unencrypted, an attacker can obtain the challenge and response and try to derive the password from this information.

Impact

For European organizations using the Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4 devices, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of device credentials and potentially sensitive operational data. These devices are typically deployed in industrial environments such as manufacturing plants, utilities, and process control systems. An attacker who recovers the VNC password can gain unauthorized remote access to the device, potentially allowing espionage, unauthorized monitoring, or preparation for further attacks on industrial control systems. While the vulnerability does not directly impact system integrity or availability, unauthorized access could be leveraged to disrupt operations indirectly. The risk is heightened in environments where network segmentation is weak or where the devices are accessible from less secure network zones. Given the critical role of industrial automation in European infrastructure and manufacturing sectors, exploitation could lead to operational disruptions and data breaches, impacting business continuity and regulatory compliance (e.g., GDPR for data confidentiality).

CWE-327Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Carefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
Cryptanalysis of Cellular Encryption (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 3 Jul 2025, 11:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-327

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats