VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jun 2025Updated 24 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-32876: Missing Authentication

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations and users should prioritize updating the COROS PACE 3 firmware as soon as a patch enabling LE Secure Connections or an equivalent security enhancement is released by the vendor. Until such updates are available, users should disable Bluetooth connectivity when not actively pairing or transmitting sensitive data to minimize exposure. Employing physical security measures to limit unauthorized access within Bluetooth range, such as restricting device use in sensitive areas, can reduce risk. Additionally, organizations should consider implementing endpoint security controls that monitor and restrict Bluetooth communications on paired devices, potentially detecting anomalous scanning or sniffing activities. For environments with heightened security requirements, replacing vulnerable devices with alternatives supporting LE Secure Connections and stronger pairing methods is advisable. User education about the risks of BLE Legacy Pairing and the importance of controlling device proximity can further reduce attack surface. Finally, integrating network-level encryption or application-layer security for data transmitted to and from the smartwatch can provide defense-in-depth against eavesdropping.

Description

An issue was discovered on COROS PACE 3 devices through 3.0808.0. The BLE implementation of the COROS smartwatch does not support LE Secure Connections and instead enforces BLE Legacy Pairing. In BLE Legacy Pairing, the Short-Term Key (STK) can be easily guessed. This requires knowledge of the Temporary Key (TK), which, in the case of the COROS Pace 3, is set to 0 due to the Just Works pairing method. An attacker within Bluetooth range can therefore perform sniffing attacks, allowing eavesdropping on the communication.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in sectors where employee health and fitness data are monitored via wearables, this vulnerability poses a privacy and security risk. Sensitive personal data transmitted by the smartwatch could be intercepted by malicious actors, potentially leading to unauthorized disclosure of health information or other personal identifiers. Organizations that issue COROS PACE 3 devices to employees or integrate them into workplace wellness programs could face compliance challenges under GDPR due to the risk of data leakage. Additionally, if the smartwatch is used in conjunction with enterprise applications or paired with corporate devices, the intercepted BLE traffic might reveal contextual information about user activities or device states, which could be leveraged for targeted social engineering or further attacks. The vulnerability also raises concerns for high-profile individuals or executives using these devices in sensitive environments, where eavesdropping could facilitate espionage or surveillance. While the attack requires physical proximity (Bluetooth range), the ease of exploitation and lack of user interaction mean that attackers could discreetly capture data in public or semi-public spaces. The overall impact is primarily on confidentiality, with limited direct effect on device integrity or availability.

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 20 Jun 2025, 14:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats