VulnerabilityPublished 4 Nov 2025Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2025-43499: Apple iOS and iPadOS · Improper Access Control

Affects Apple iOS and iPadOSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium · fixed in 18.7.2 : update Apple iOS and iPadOS when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 18.7.2

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

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: 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 4 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
Apple iOS and iPadOS	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations and users should immediately update affected Apple devices to iOS 18.7.2, iPadOS 18.7.2, or the corresponding macOS versions that include the fix. Beyond patching, administrators should enforce strict app installation policies, limiting apps to those from trusted sources such as the Apple App Store and employing Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions to control app permissions and entitlements. Regularly audit installed applications for suspicious behavior or excessive permissions. Educate users about the risks of installing untrusted apps and the importance of applying OS updates promptly. For high-security environments, consider additional endpoint protection solutions that monitor app behavior and data access patterns. Finally, review and tighten entitlement configurations in enterprise app deployments to minimize unnecessary data access.

Description

This issue was addressed with additional entitlement checks. This issue is fixed in iOS 18.7.2 and iPadOS 18.7.2, macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Sonoma 14.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1. An app may be able to access sensitive user data.

Impact

This vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized disclosure of sensitive user data on affected Apple devices. For organizations, this could lead to leakage of confidential information, potentially including personal identifiers, credentials, or proprietary data stored or accessible on iOS and iPadOS devices. The impact is primarily on confidentiality, with no direct effect on system integrity or availability. Exploitation requires local access and user interaction, which limits remote or large-scale automated attacks but still presents a significant risk in environments where devices are shared, lost, or exposed to malicious apps. Enterprises with BYOD policies or those relying heavily on Apple mobile devices for sensitive communications and data storage are particularly at risk. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate threat but does not eliminate the risk, especially as attackers may develop exploits post-disclosure. Failure to patch could lead to targeted attacks or insider threats leveraging this vulnerability to extract sensitive data.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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 3 Apr 2026, 02:31 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats