VulnerabilityPublished 12 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-46067: Use of Hard-coded Password

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.3% 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:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 12 Jan 2026
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 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

1. Immediately restrict network access to Automai Director instances, limiting exposure to trusted internal networks only. 2. Implement strict input validation and sanitization for all JavaScript files processed by Automai Director to prevent execution of crafted malicious scripts. 3. Employ application-layer firewalls or runtime application self-protection (RASP) solutions to detect and block anomalous script execution. 4. Monitor logs and system behavior for signs of privilege escalation attempts or unauthorized access. 5. Isolate Automai Director environments from critical production systems to contain potential breaches. 6. Engage with the vendor for timely patch releases and apply updates as soon as they become available. 7. Conduct security awareness training for administrators on the risks of processing untrusted scripts. 8. Review and enforce the principle of least privilege for all user accounts interacting with Automai Director. 9. Consider deploying endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to identify suspicious activities related to this vulnerability. 10. Prepare incident response plans specific to automation platform compromises.

Description

An issue in Automai Director v.25.2.0 allows a remote attacker to escalate privileges and obtain sensitive information via a crafted js file

Impact

For European organizations, exploitation of CVE-2025-46067 could lead to unauthorized privilege escalation within critical automation and testing environments, resulting in exposure of sensitive corporate data and disruption of automated workflows. This could affect sectors heavily reliant on automation tools, including finance, manufacturing, telecommunications, and public services. The breach of confidentiality and integrity could lead to regulatory non-compliance under GDPR due to data exposure. Operational disruptions may cause financial losses and damage to organizational reputation. Since Automai Director is used globally, European entities with extensive automation deployments are at risk, especially those with less mature security controls around software supply chain and automation platforms. The remote nature of the attack vector increases the likelihood of exploitation if network access controls are insufficient. The lack of a patch or mitigation guidance from the vendor further elevates the risk profile until a fix is available.

CWE-259Use of Hard-coded Password (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a hard-coded password, which it uses for its own inbound authentication or for outbound communication to external components.
Architecture and Design
For outbound authentication: store passwords outside of the code in a strongly-protected, encrypted configuration file or database that is protected from access by all outsiders, including other local users on the same system. Properly protect the key (CWE-320).
Architecture and Design
For inbound authentication: Rather than hard-code a default username and password for first time logins, utilize a "first login" mode that requires the user to enter a unique strong password.
Architecture and Design
Perform access control checks and limit which entities can access the feature that requires the hard-coded password. For example, a feature might only be enabled through the system console instead of through a network connection.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (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 12 Jan 2026, 16:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-259

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats