CVE-2025-30135VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-30135: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.4 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.4Critical

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% 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:H/I:H/A:L

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

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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 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

Immediate mitigation steps include isolating the affected dashcam devices on segmented, secured networks with strict access controls to limit exposure to trusted personnel only. Organizations should disable or restrict access to the HTTP and RTSP interfaces if possible, or place them behind VPNs or firewalls that enforce authentication and encryption. Network monitoring should be implemented to detect unauthorized access attempts to the device IP and RTSP port 8554. If available, firmware updates or patches from the vendor should be applied promptly once released. In the absence of official patches, organizations should consider replacing vulnerable devices with alternatives that enforce proper authentication and encryption. Additionally, encrypting network traffic using VPN tunnels or secure protocols can reduce the risk of interception. Regular audits of IoT device configurations and network segmentation policies are recommended to prevent similar vulnerabilities. Finally, organizations should review and update their incident response plans to address potential data breaches involving video footage.

Description

An issue was discovered on IROAD Dashcam FX2 devices. Dumping Files Over HTTP and RTSP Without Authentication can occur. It lacks authentication controls on its HTTP and RTSP interfaces, allowing attackers to retrieve sensitive files and video recordings. By connecting to http://192.168.10.1/mnt/extsd/event/, an attacker can download all stored video recordings in an unencrypted manner. Additionally, the RTSP stream on port 8554 is accessible without authentication, allowing an attacker to view live footage.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a serious risk to privacy and data protection compliance, especially under regulations such as the GDPR, which mandates strict controls over personal data, including video recordings. Organizations using IROAD Dashcam FX2 devices in fleet management, logistics, transportation, or security operations could have sensitive footage exposed, potentially revealing confidential operational details or personally identifiable information (PII) of employees, customers, or third parties. The ability to access live streams without authentication could also enable real-time surveillance by unauthorized parties, leading to espionage or physical security risks. The unencrypted transmission of data further increases the risk of interception by malicious actors within the network. This could lead to reputational damage, legal liabilities, and financial penalties for affected organizations. The vulnerability also undermines trust in the security of IoT devices deployed in critical business functions. Given that exploitation does not require authentication or user interaction, the threat can be realized by insiders or external attackers who gain network access, including through compromised Wi-Fi or VPN connections.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (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 25 Jul 2025, 19:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats