VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2025Updated 2 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-44557: Cypress PSoC4 · Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: 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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 27 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

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch or update, European organizations should implement layered mitigations. First, conduct an inventory to identify devices using Cypress PSoC4 BLE stack version 3.66. Where possible, disable BLE functionality on devices that do not require it or restrict BLE usage to trusted environments. Employ physical security controls to limit attacker proximity to vulnerable devices, such as shielding or controlled access areas. Monitor BLE traffic for anomalous pairing attempts or malformed packets indicative of exploitation attempts. Network segmentation can limit the impact of compromised devices. Engage with Cypress and device vendors to obtain firmware updates or security advisories and plan timely deployment of patches once available. Additionally, consider deploying BLE security gateways or intrusion detection systems capable of filtering or alerting on suspicious BLE activity. For new deployments, evaluate alternative hardware or BLE stacks with proven security track records until this vulnerability is resolved.

Description

A state machine transition flaw in the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) stack of Cypress PSoC4 v3.66 allows attackers to bypass the pairing process and authentication via a crafted pairing_failed packet.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability could be significant, especially for those deploying IoT devices, industrial control systems, or consumer electronics that incorporate Cypress PSoC4 microcontrollers with BLE capabilities. Unauthorized bypass of BLE pairing and authentication can lead to unauthorized device access, data interception, or manipulation, potentially compromising sensitive information or operational integrity. In industrial or critical infrastructure contexts, this could disrupt processes or enable lateral movement within networks. Consumer devices affected could expose personal data or allow attackers to use devices as entry points into home or corporate networks. The wireless nature of BLE means that attackers do not require physical access, only proximity, increasing the risk in densely populated or public environments common in European urban centers. Additionally, the lack of a patch or mitigation at the time of publication means organizations may remain exposed until Cypress releases a firmware update or alternative remediation.

CWE-303Incorrect Implementation of Authentication Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The requirements for the product dictate the use of an established authentication algorithm, but the implementation of the algorithm is incorrect.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Reflection Attack in Authentication Protocol (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Jun 2025, 17:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-303

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats