CVE-2025-2810VulnerabilityPublished 5 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-2810: Draeger ICMHelper · Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key

Affects Draeger ICMHelperSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 5 Aug 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Draeger Draeger ICMHelper	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately conduct an inventory to identify all instances of Draeger ICMHelper in their environment. Until a vendor patch is available, restrict local access to systems running the vulnerable service by enforcing strict access controls and monitoring for unusual local activity. Employ host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to detect attempts to extract or misuse cryptographic keys. Network segmentation should be used to isolate affected devices from broader enterprise networks, limiting potential lateral movement. If possible, disable or replace the ICMHelper service with a non-vulnerable alternative. Organizations should engage with Draeger support to obtain timelines for patches or updates and apply them promptly once released. Additionally, review and enhance logging and alerting around the use of cryptographic functions within these systems to detect exploitation attempts. For long-term mitigation, advocate for the use of secure key management practices, such as hardware security modules (HSMs) or secure key vaults, to prevent hard-coded keys in future deployments.

Description

A low privileged local attacker can abuse the affected service by using a hardcoded cryptographic key.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in healthcare and critical infrastructure sectors where Draeger products are commonly used, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of sensitive data. Medical devices and systems often handle protected health information (PHI) subject to strict regulations such as GDPR and the EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR). Exploitation could lead to unauthorized disclosure of patient data, undermining patient privacy and trust, and resulting in regulatory penalties. Additionally, the presence of a hard-coded cryptographic key could facilitate lateral movement within networks if attackers leverage the key to access other systems or escalate privileges. Although the vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach alone can have severe reputational and legal consequences. European hospitals, clinics, and industrial facilities using Draeger ICMHelper are at risk, particularly if local attackers gain physical or low-level access to devices. The lack of a patch increases the urgency for interim mitigations. Given the critical nature of healthcare and industrial environments, this vulnerability could also indirectly impact patient safety or operational continuity if sensitive configuration or monitoring data is exposed.

CWE-321Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a hard-coded, unchangeable cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
Prevention schemes mirror that of hard-coded password storage.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

certvde.com/en/advisories/VDE-2025-028 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Aug 2025, 08:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-321

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats