VulnerabilityPublished 9 Dec 2025Updated 10 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-40800: Siemens COMOS V10.6 · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects Siemens COMOS V10.6Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
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: 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: 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 9 Dec 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 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 COMOS V10.6	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Apply Siemens-provided patches and updates as soon as they become available for all affected products to ensure proper certificate validation is enforced. 2. Until patches are deployed, restrict network access to authorization servers by implementing network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure to untrusted networks. 3. Employ TLS inspection and monitoring tools to detect anomalous TLS handshakes or certificate anomalies indicative of MitM attempts. 4. Use endpoint security solutions capable of detecting suspicious network activity related to the IAM client. 5. Educate IT and security teams about this vulnerability to prioritize monitoring and incident response readiness. 6. Consider deploying additional authentication mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce risk from compromised authorization sessions. 7. Review and harden network infrastructure to prevent unauthorized interception, including use of VPNs or dedicated secure channels for sensitive communications. 8. Maintain an inventory of affected Siemens software versions to ensure comprehensive remediation coverage.

Description

A vulnerability has been identified in COMOS V10.6 (All versions < V10.6.1), COMOS V10.6 (All versions < V10.6.1), NX V2412 (All versions < V2412.8700), NX V2506 (All versions < V2506.6000), Simcenter 3D (All versions < V2506.6000), Simcenter Femap (All versions < V2506.0002), Solid Edge SE2025 (All versions < V225.0 Update 10), Solid Edge SE2026 (All versions < V226.0 Update 1). The IAM client in affected products is missing server certificate validation while establishing TLS connections to the authorization server. This could allow an attacker to perform a man-in-the-middle attack.

Impact

The vulnerability could allow attackers to intercept and manipulate authentication and authorization data between Siemens clients and their servers, potentially leading to unauthorized access, data leakage, or session hijacking. This compromises the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive industrial and engineering data, which could disrupt design processes, intellectual property protection, and operational security. Organizations using affected Siemens software in critical infrastructure, manufacturing, or industrial control environments face increased risk of espionage, sabotage, or intellectual property theft. The absence of availability impact reduces the likelihood of direct denial-of-service, but the integrity and confidentiality breaches alone can cause significant operational and reputational damage. Given the widespread use of Siemens products in industrial sectors globally, the threat has broad implications for supply chain security and industrial cybersecurity.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Mar 2026, 19:00 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats