VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-40591: Siemens RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 · Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security

Affects Siemens RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.7 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.7High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 52% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 10 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Siemens RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation involves restricting access to the web interface of affected RUGGEDCOM devices to trusted administrators only, ideally via segmented management networks and VPNs with strong multi-factor authentication.
Monitor and audit authentication logs to detect any unauthorized or suspicious access attempts.
Apply strict network-level controls such as firewall rules to limit inbound connections to the management interfaces.
Siemens should be engaged to obtain firmware updates or patches; organizations should prioritize upgrading to version 2.16.5 or later as soon as it becomes available.
In the interim, disable or restrict use of the 'Log Viewers' tool if possible, or implement compensating controls such as web application firewalls (WAFs) that can detect and block command injection patterns.
Conduct internal credential hygiene reviews to ensure that only necessary personnel have access and that credentials are rotated regularly.
Implement intrusion detection systems (IDS) tuned to detect anomalous commands or file access patterns on these devices.
Perform regular vulnerability assessments and penetration tests focusing on these devices to identify any exploitation attempts.

Description

A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX MX5000RE (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1400 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1500 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1501 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1510 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1511 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1512 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1524 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX1536 (All versions < V2.16.5), RUGGEDCOM ROX RX5000 (All versions < V2.16.5). The 'Log Viewers' tool in the web interface of affected devices is vulnerable to command injection due to missing server side input sanitation. This could allow an authenticated remote attacker to execute the 'tail' command with root privileges and disclose contents of all files in the filesystem.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in critical infrastructure sectors such as energy, transportation, and industrial automation where Siemens RUGGEDCOM devices are widely deployed, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Unauthorized disclosure of sensitive files could expose network configurations, operational data, or credentials, potentially facilitating further attacks or espionage. Since these devices often operate in industrial control system (ICS) environments, confidentiality breaches could undermine operational security and trust. The requirement for authentication limits the attack surface to insiders or attackers who have obtained valid credentials, but given the critical nature of these devices, even limited access can have outsized consequences. The lack of impact on integrity or availability reduces the risk of direct operational disruption, but the confidentiality compromise alone is serious. European organizations must consider the regulatory implications under GDPR if personal or sensitive data is exposed. Additionally, the strategic importance of these devices in European industrial networks means that threat actors targeting European infrastructure could prioritize exploiting this vulnerability.

CWE-602Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product is composed of a server that relies on the client to implement a mechanism that is intended to protect the server.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side. 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 entirely.
Architecture and Design
If some degree of trust is required between the two entities, then use integrity checking and strong authentication to ensure that the inputs are coming from a trusted source.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Manipulating Hidden Fields (opens in a new tab)
Create Malicious Client (opens in a new tab)
Removing Important Client Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Removing/short-circuiting 'Purse' logic: removing/mutating 'cash' decrements (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-301229.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2025, 23:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-602

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats