VulnerabilityPublished 24 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-41729: Janitza UMG 96-PA · Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input

Affects Janitza UMG 96-PASource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 24 Nov 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
Janitza UMG 96-PA	Affected =0.0.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Since no patches are currently available, European organizations should implement compensating controls to mitigate the risk. These include: 1) Network segmentation to isolate Janitza UMG 96-PA devices from general IT networks and restrict Modbus traffic to trusted sources only. 2) Deploy firewalls or industrial protocol-aware intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) to monitor and block anomalous or malformed Modbus commands. 3) Restrict access to the devices at the network level using VLANs, ACLs, or VPNs to ensure only authorized systems can communicate with the devices. 4) Regularly monitor device logs and network traffic for unusual Modbus read requests that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5) Engage with Janitza for updates on patches or firmware fixes and plan prompt deployment once available. 6) Conduct security awareness and incident response planning specific to industrial control system vulnerabilities. 7) Consider temporary operational procedures to reduce reliance on affected devices until remediation is possible.

Description

An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a specially crafted Modbus read command to the device which leads to a denial of service.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-41729 is a denial of service condition that affects the availability of Janitza UMG 96-PA devices. For European organizations, especially those in the energy, manufacturing, and critical infrastructure sectors, this can lead to loss of real-time power monitoring data, delayed detection of power quality issues, and potential cascading effects on operational decision-making. Disruption of these devices could impair energy management systems, cause operational inefficiencies, or even safety risks if power anomalies go undetected. Given the device’s role in industrial environments, the DoS could also affect compliance with regulatory requirements for monitoring and reporting. The unauthenticated nature of the attack increases risk, as attackers do not need credentials or insider access. The impact is more severe in environments where these devices are exposed to less controlled networks or where network segmentation is weak. The absence of known exploits currently limits immediate risk, but the vulnerability’s characteristics make it a likely target for future exploitation attempts.

CWE-1287Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

certvde.com/de/advisories/VDE-2025-094 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Dec 2025, 12:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1287

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats