CVE-2025-40935VulnerabilityPublished 9 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-40935: Siemens RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X · Improper Input Validation

Affects Siemens RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.XSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% 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:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 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 2026-10-25.

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 RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade all affected Siemens RUGGEDCOM devices to firmware version V5.10.1 or later as soon as the patch is released by Siemens. 2. Restrict access to the web management interface to trusted administrators only, ideally via VPN or secure management networks. 3. Implement strong authentication mechanisms and regularly rotate credentials to reduce risk of credential compromise. 4. Monitor device logs and network traffic for signs of abnormal certificate upload attempts or unexpected device reboots. 5. Employ network segmentation to isolate critical RUGGEDCOM devices from less trusted network zones. 6. Use intrusion detection/prevention systems to detect anomalous activity targeting device management interfaces. 7. Establish incident response procedures to quickly address device outages and restore service. 8. Coordinate with Siemens support for guidance and timely updates. 9. Consider additional compensating controls such as multi-factor authentication for device access if supported. 10. Document and audit all changes to device configurations and firmware versions to maintain security posture.

Description

A vulnerability has been identified in RUGGEDCOM RMC8388 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RS416Pv2 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RS416v2 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RS900 (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RS900G (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG2100 (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG2100P (32M) V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG2288 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG2300 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG2300P V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG2488 V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG907R (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG908C (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG909R (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG910C (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSG920P V5.X (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RSL910 (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RST2228 (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RST2228P (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RST916C (All versions < V5.10.1), RUGGEDCOM RST916P (All versions < V5.10.1). Affected devices do not properly validate input during the TLS certificate upload process of the web service. This could allow an authenticated remote attacker to trigger a device crash and reboot, leading to a temporary Denial of Service on the device.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-40935 is a temporary denial of service caused by device crashes and reboots. For European organizations, especially those in critical infrastructure sectors such as energy, transportation, and manufacturing, this can lead to network communication disruptions, operational downtime, and potential cascading effects on industrial processes. Since RUGGEDCOM devices are often deployed in harsh or remote environments to provide ruggedized network connectivity, any downtime can be costly and difficult to remediate quickly. Although the vulnerability does not expose sensitive data or allow unauthorized control, the loss of availability can hinder monitoring, control, and safety systems. This could increase operational risk and reduce resilience against other concurrent cyber or physical incidents. The requirement for authentication to exploit the vulnerability somewhat limits the attack surface but insider threats or compromised credentials could still enable exploitation. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but also means organizations should proactively patch and monitor to prevent future attacks.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-763474.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Dec 2025, 11:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats