CVE-2025-47187VulnerabilityPublished 23 Jul 2025Updated 29 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-47187: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 57% 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:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 23 Jul 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 2026-10-25.

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. Network Segmentation: Isolate Mitel SIP phones and conference units on dedicated VLANs with strict access controls to limit exposure to untrusted networks. 2. Access Control Lists (ACLs): Implement ACLs on network devices to restrict access to the management and file upload interfaces of the affected phones only to trusted IP addresses or subnets. 3. Monitoring and Logging: Enable detailed logging on telephony infrastructure to detect unusual file upload activity or storage usage spikes. 4. Firmware Updates: Monitor Mitel’s official channels for security patches addressing this vulnerability and apply updates promptly once available. 5. Disable Unused Services: If possible, disable or restrict the file upload functionality on affected devices until a patch is applied. 6. Incident Response Preparation: Develop and test incident response plans specific to telephony infrastructure to quickly address potential exploitation. 7. Vendor Engagement: Engage with Mitel support to obtain guidance or interim mitigations and confirm device versions in use. 8. Network Intrusion Detection: Deploy IDS/IPS solutions with signatures or anomaly detection tuned to identify unauthorized file upload attempts targeting SIP phones. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on network-level controls, proactive monitoring, and vendor coordination tailored to the specific nature of the vulnerability.

Description

A vulnerability in the Mitel 6800 Series, 6900 Series, and 6900w Series SIP Phones through 6.4 SP4 (R6.4.0.4006), and the 6970 Conference Unit through 6.4 SP4 (R6.4.0.4006) or version V1 R0.1.0, could allow an unauthenticated attacker to perform a file upload attack due to missing authentication mechanisms. A successful exploit could allow an attacker to upload arbitrary WAV files, which may potentially exhaust the phone’s storage without affecting the phone's availability or operation.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the availability and operational reliability of telephony infrastructure. Mitel phones are widely used in enterprise environments across Europe, including in sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and telecommunications. An attacker exploiting this vulnerability could upload large WAV files to devices, potentially exhausting storage and causing degradation in call recording, voicemail, or conference functionalities. While the phones remain operational, the storage exhaustion could prevent legitimate audio data from being saved, impacting business communications and compliance with recording regulations. Additionally, the presence of unauthorized files could complicate forensic investigations or incident response. Given that the attack requires no authentication and can be performed remotely over the network, organizations with exposed or poorly segmented VoIP infrastructure are at higher risk. This could lead to service disruptions, increased support costs, and potential reputational damage. The lack of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation before active exploitation occurs.

CWE-434Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #12OWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product allows the upload or transfer of dangerous file types that are automatically processed within its environment.
Architecture and Design
Generate a new, unique filename for an uploaded file instead of using the user-supplied filename, so that no external input is used at all.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
Architecture and Design
Consider storing the uploaded files outside of the web document root entirely. Then, use other mechanisms to deliver the files dynamically.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Server Side Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Web Service Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
V12.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (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 31 Jul 2025, 00:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-434

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats