VulnerabilityPublished 12 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-4418: AVEVA PI Connector for CygNet · CWE-354

Affects AVEVA PI Connector for CygNetSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: 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: 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: 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 12 Jun 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
AVEVA PI Connector for CygNet	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Restrict and monitor privileged access rigorously: Since exploitation requires elevated privileges, enforcing strict access controls and continuous monitoring of privileged accounts can reduce risk.
Implement file integrity monitoring on PI Connector local data files to detect unauthorized modifications promptly.
Isolate systems running AVEVA PI Connector for CygNet from general-purpose networks to limit local access opportunities for attackers.
Regularly audit and update system configurations to ensure only authorized personnel have elevated privileges.
Engage with AVEVA support and subscribe to their security advisories to obtain patches or workarounds once available.
Consider deploying redundant or failover systems for the PI Connector service to maintain availability in case of service disruption.
Conduct incident response drills simulating connector service unavailability to prepare operational teams for rapid recovery.
Use application whitelisting and endpoint protection solutions to prevent unauthorized modification of critical files. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific attack vector (local privileged modification of files) and the operational context of ICS environments.

Description

An improper validation of integrity check value vulnerability exists in AVEVA PI Connector for CygNet Versions 1.6.14 and prior that, if exploited, could allow a miscreant with elevated privileges to modify PI Connector for CygNet local data files (cache and buffers) in a way that causes the connector service to become unresponsive.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those operating critical infrastructure and industrial control systems, this vulnerability poses a risk of service disruption. The AVEVA PI Connector for CygNet is often used in SCADA environments to facilitate data exchange and monitoring. An unresponsive connector service can lead to loss of real-time data acquisition and monitoring capabilities, potentially delaying operational decisions and incident responses. While the vulnerability does not allow data exfiltration or unauthorized data modification, the denial-of-service impact could affect operational continuity, safety monitoring, and compliance with regulatory requirements for availability. Organizations in sectors such as energy production and distribution, water treatment, and manufacturing automation are particularly vulnerable. The requirement for elevated privileges limits the attack vector to insiders or attackers who have already compromised a system with high-level access, but this does not diminish the operational impact if exploited. Given the critical nature of these systems, even temporary service disruption can have cascading effects on industrial processes and safety systems.

CWE-354Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
Implementation
Ensure that the checksums present in messages are properly checked in accordance with the protocol specification before they are parsed and used.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Checksum Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files (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 12 Jun 2025, 20:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-354

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats