VulnerabilityPublished 29 May 2025

CVE-2025-46352: Consilium Safety CS5000 Fire Panel · CWE-798

Affects Consilium Safety CS5000 Fire PanelSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% 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:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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 29 May 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
Consilium Safety CS5000 Fire Panel	Affected *	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Network Segmentation: Isolate the CS5000 Fire Panel on a dedicated, secured network segment with strict access controls to prevent unauthorized remote access to the VNC server. 2) Access Control: Restrict network access to the fire panel’s management interfaces using firewalls and VPNs, allowing only trusted administrators to connect. 3) Monitoring and Logging: Deploy network monitoring tools to detect unusual access attempts or traffic patterns targeting the fire panel’s IP and VNC port. 4) Physical Security: Ensure physical access to the fire panel is tightly controlled to prevent local exploitation or tampering. 5) Vendor Engagement: Engage with Consilium Safety for updates or firmware patches and request timelines for remediation. 6) Incident Response Planning: Prepare response procedures for potential exploitation scenarios, including manual fire detection and alarm protocols. 7) Alternative Controls: Where feasible, consider deploying additional or redundant fire detection systems that do not rely solely on the vulnerable CS5000 panel. 8) Firmware Analysis: If resources permit, conduct reverse engineering or security assessments to identify potential workarounds or temporary fixes, such as disabling the VNC service if possible. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on network architecture and operational controls tailored to the device’s role and vulnerability specifics.

Description

The CS5000 Fire Panel is vulnerable due to a hard-coded password that runs on a VNC server and is visible as a string in the binary responsible for running VNC. This password cannot be altered, allowing anyone with knowledge of it to gain remote access to the panel. Such access could enable an attacker to operate the panel remotely, potentially putting the fire panel into a non-functional state and causing serious safety issues.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be severe, especially in sectors where fire safety systems are critical, such as commercial buildings, hospitals, industrial facilities, transportation hubs, and public infrastructure. An attacker exploiting this flaw could remotely disable fire detection and alarm capabilities, leading to delayed emergency responses and increased risk of injury, loss of life, and property damage. The compromise of fire panels also undermines compliance with European safety regulations and standards, potentially resulting in legal liabilities and reputational damage. Additionally, attackers could use the access as a foothold for further network intrusion or sabotage, especially in industrial or critical infrastructure environments. The inability to change the hard-coded password means that even well-managed networks remain vulnerable if the device is reachable remotely. The lack of patches exacerbates the risk, requiring organizations to rely on compensating controls. This vulnerability highlights the risks associated with embedded systems in safety-critical roles and the need for rigorous security design and lifecycle management.

CWE-798Use of Hard-coded Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
For outbound authentication: store passwords, keys, and other credentials 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, key, or other authentication credentials for first time logins, utilize a "first login" mode that requires the user to enter a unique strong password or key.
Architecture and Design
If the product must contain hard-coded credentials or they cannot be removed, perform access control checks and limit which entities can access the feature that requires the hard-coded credentials. For example, a feature might only be enabled through the system console instead of through a network connection.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.10.4 (opens in a new tab)
V6.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Read Sensitive Constants Within an Executable (opens in a new tab)
Try Common or Default Usernames and Passwords (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 7 Jul 2025, 21:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-798

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats