CVE-2025-27459VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-27459: Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4 · Storing Passwords in a Recoverable Format

Affects Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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: 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 2026-10-26.

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

AI-suggested

1. Restrict and monitor access to systems running the Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4 product to trusted personnel only, enforcing strict role-based access controls to minimize the risk of privilege escalation or insider threats. 2. Implement host-based intrusion detection and prevention systems (HIDS/HIPS) to detect unauthorized access attempts or suspicious activities on affected systems. 3. Regularly audit registry keys and system configurations to detect unauthorized changes or access to the stored password entries. 4. Where possible, isolate the affected devices within segmented network zones with strict firewall rules to limit lateral movement opportunities. 5. Use multi-factor authentication (MFA) on remote access services to reduce reliance on stored passwords and mitigate the impact of credential disclosure. 6. Engage with Endress+Hauser support to obtain updates or patches as soon as they become available and plan for timely deployment. 7. Consider deploying endpoint encryption or secure credential vault solutions that do not rely on reversible encryption methods like DES. 8. Educate system administrators and operators about the risks of this vulnerability and best practices for credential management in industrial environments.

Description

The VNC application stores its passwords encrypted within the registry but uses DES for encryption. As DES is broken, the original passwords can be recovered.

Impact

For European organizations using the Endress+Hauser MEAC300-FNADE4, particularly those in industrial automation, process control, or critical infrastructure sectors, this vulnerability poses a significant confidentiality risk. If an attacker gains local high-level access to the system, they can extract VNC passwords and potentially access remote control interfaces, leading to unauthorized control or monitoring of industrial processes. This could disrupt operations, cause safety hazards, or lead to data breaches. Given the critical nature of industrial control systems in sectors such as manufacturing, energy, water treatment, and pharmaceuticals, exploitation could have cascading effects on operational continuity and safety. Although the vulnerability does not directly impact integrity or availability, the compromise of credentials can facilitate further attacks that might. The requirement for high privileges limits the attack surface somewhat, but insider threats or attackers who have already compromised a system could leverage this vulnerability to escalate access. The lack of patches increases the urgency for organizations to implement compensating controls. The medium CVSS score reflects the balance between the high confidentiality impact and the requirement for local high privileges.

CWE-257Storing Passwords in a Recoverable Format (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2021: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The storage of passwords in a recoverable format makes them subject to password reuse attacks by malicious users. In fact, it should be noted that recoverable encrypted passwords provide no significant benefit over plaintext passwords since they are subject not only to reuse by malicious attackers but also by malicious insiders. If a system administrator can recover a password directly, or use a brute force search on the available information, the administrator can use the password on other accounts.
Architecture and Design
Use strong, non-reversible encryption to protect stored passwords.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Password Brute Forcing (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-257

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats