CVE-2025-47820VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2025Updated 2 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-47820: Flock Safety Gunshot Detection devices · Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information

Affects Flock Safety Gunshot Detection devicesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.0 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.0Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 2026-10-26.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Flock Safety Gunshot Detection devices	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should prioritize upgrading all Flock Safety Gunshot Detection devices to version 1.3 or later, where this issue is resolved. Until patches are available, physical security controls must be enhanced to prevent unauthorized access to the devices, including secure mounting, tamper-evident seals, and surveillance of device locations. Regular physical inspections should be conducted to detect any signs of tampering. Additionally, organizations should implement strict access control policies limiting who can handle or maintain these devices. If possible, encrypting the storage medium or employing hardware security modules could be considered as compensating controls. Monitoring for unusual device behavior or unauthorized access attempts can also help detect exploitation attempts. Finally, organizations should engage with the vendor to obtain timely updates and security advisories related to these devices.

Description

Flock Safety Gunshot Detection devices before 1.3 have cleartext storage of code.

Impact

For European organizations deploying Flock Safety Gunshot Detection devices, this vulnerability presents a limited but tangible risk. The primary impact is the potential exposure of sensitive code stored on the device, which could lead to intellectual property theft or facilitate more sophisticated attacks if combined with other vulnerabilities. However, since exploitation requires physical access to the device, the risk is mainly relevant in scenarios where devices are deployed in unsecured or publicly accessible locations. The confidentiality impact is low, and there is no direct threat to the integrity or availability of the detection system. Nonetheless, organizations relying on these devices for critical security monitoring might face reduced trust in the device's security posture. Additionally, exposure of sensitive code could aid attackers in developing bypass techniques or counterfeit devices, indirectly impacting security operations. European entities involved in law enforcement, public safety, or private security using these devices should be aware of this vulnerability and consider it in their risk assessments.

CWE-312Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to encrypt the data at rest.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
In some systems/environments such as cloud, the use of "double encryption" (at both the software and hardware layer) might be required, and the developer might be solely responsible for both layers, instead of shared responsibility with the administrator of the broader system/environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data (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 3 Sep 2025, 00:38 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-312

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats