VulnerabilityPublished 9 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-41692: Phoenix Contact FL SWITCH 2005 · Weak Password Hashing

Affects Phoenix Contact FL SWITCH 2005Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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 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 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
Phoenix Contact FL SWITCH 2005	Affected =0.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Apply vendor patches immediately once they become available to address the weak password hashing implementation.
Enforce strong password policies for both webUI and OS-level accounts, including the use of complex, high-entropy passwords that resist brute-force attempts.
Restrict administrative webUI access through network segmentation, allowing only trusted management networks or VPNs to connect.
Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) for webUI access to reduce the risk of credential compromise leading to further exploitation.
Monitor device logs and network traffic for signs of brute-force attempts or unusual authentication failures targeting the webUI or OS accounts.
Conduct regular security audits and penetration tests focusing on industrial control systems and network devices to identify and remediate similar weaknesses.
Educate operational technology (OT) security teams about the risks of weak password hashing and the importance of layered security controls in industrial environments.

Description

A high privileged remote attacker with admin privileges for the webUI can brute-force the "root" and "user" passwords of the underlying OS due to a weak password generation algorithm.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those operating in industrial automation, manufacturing, and critical infrastructure sectors, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of device credentials. Compromise of root or user passwords on FL SWITCH 2005 devices could allow attackers to gain deeper access to network segments, potentially facilitating lateral movement, data exfiltration, or disruption of industrial processes. Given the device's role in network switching within industrial environments, unauthorized access could undermine network segmentation and security controls. The vulnerability's requirement for prior admin access to the webUI reduces the likelihood of initial compromise but elevates the risk of privilege escalation and persistence once inside. European organizations relying on Phoenix Contact products must consider the potential for targeted attacks, especially in countries with a strong industrial base and high adoption of these devices. The absence of known exploits in the wild provides a window for remediation, but the medium severity score indicates that the threat should not be underestimated.

CWE-916Use of Password Hash With Insufficient Computational Effort (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product generates a hash for a password, but it uses a scheme that does not provide a sufficient level of computational effort that would make password cracking attacks infeasible or expensive.
Architecture and Design
Use an adaptive hash function that can be configured to change the amount of computational effort needed to compute the hash, such as the number of iterations ("stretching") or the amount of memory required. Some hash functions perform salting automatically.
Implementation · Architecture and Design
When using industry-approved techniques, use them correctly. Don't cut corners by skipping resource-intensive steps (CWE-325). These steps are often essential for preventing common attacks.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.4.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V2.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Rainbow Table Password Cracking (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

certvde.com/de/advisories/VDE-2025-071 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Dec 2025, 10:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-916

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats