VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jun 2025Updated 23 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-32875: COROS application · Improper Authentication

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 5% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: COROS application through 3.8.12

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
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: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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 20 Jun 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

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations and users should adopt several practical measures to mitigate this vulnerability: 1) Disable Bluetooth connectivity for COROS devices when not in active use to minimize exposure. 2) Avoid using COROS smartwatches for transmitting sensitive or confidential information until a secure update is released. 3) Monitor for updates from COROS and apply patches promptly once available. 4) Employ physical security controls to restrict unauthorized individuals from gaining Bluetooth proximity to devices, such as secure storage or restricted access zones. 5) Use network-level monitoring tools to detect anomalous BLE activity or potential MITM attempts in environments where COROS devices are deployed. 6) Consider deploying alternative wearable solutions with verified secure BLE implementations for critical use cases. 7) Educate users on the risks of unencrypted BLE communication and encourage vigilance regarding device pairing and bonding status. 8) For organizations with mobile device management (MDM) solutions, enforce policies that restrict or monitor the installation and use of vulnerable COROS app versions. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on operational controls, user awareness, and proactive monitoring tailored to the specific nature of the vulnerability.

Description

An issue was discovered in the COROS application through 3.8.12 for Android. Bluetooth pairing and bonding is neither initiated nor enforced by the application itself. Also, the watch does not enforce pairing and bonding. As a result, any data transmitted via BLE remains unencrypted, allowing attackers within Bluetooth range to eavesdrop on the communication. Furthermore, even if a user manually initiates pairing and bonding in the Android settings, the application continues to transmit data without requiring the watch to be bonded. This fallback behavior enables attackers to exploit the communication, for example, by conducting an active machine-in-the-middle attack.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in sectors where wearable technology is used for health monitoring, fitness tracking, or workforce management, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk. The unencrypted BLE communication can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive personal or operational data, potentially violating data protection regulations such as GDPR. Attackers within physical proximity could eavesdrop on or manipulate data streams, undermining trust in the device and potentially leading to operational disruptions or privacy breaches. Organizations using COROS devices in corporate wellness programs or employee monitoring could face reputational damage and legal consequences if sensitive employee data is compromised. Moreover, the possibility of active MITM attacks introduces risks of data tampering, which could affect decision-making processes based on inaccurate or maliciously altered data. The vulnerability also raises concerns for sectors like healthcare, where wearable devices might transmit critical biometric data. The lack of encryption and authentication could expose patient data to interception, contravening strict European health data protection laws. Overall, the vulnerability threatens confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data transmitted via COROS smartwatches, with potential cascading effects on organizational security posture and compliance obligations.

CWE-287Improper Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
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
Fake the Source of Data (opens in a new tab)
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Session Hijacking (opens in a new tab)
Token Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-311Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Requirements
Clearly specify which data or resources are valuable enough that they should be protected by encryption. Require that any transmission or storage of this data/resource should use well-vetted encryption algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that encryption is properly integrated into the system design, including but not necessarily limited to: Encryption that is needed to store or transmit private data of the users of the system; Encryption that is needed to protect the system itself from unauthorized disclosure or tampering
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V6.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V6.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Sniffing Attacks (opens in a new tab)
Sniffing Network Traffic (opens in a new tab)
Lifting Sensitive Data Embedded in Cache (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data (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 21 Jun 2025, 10:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-287, CWE-311

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats