CVE-2025-47824VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2025Updated 2 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-47824: Flock Safety License Plate Reader · Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information

Affects Flock Safety License Plate ReaderSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.0 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Flock Safety License Plate Reader	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should prioritize the following actions: 1) Work with Flock Safety to obtain firmware updates that implement encryption for all sensitive data stored on the device, ensuring data at rest is protected. 2) Enhance physical security controls around LPR devices to prevent unauthorized access, including tamper-evident seals, secure mounting, and restricted access areas. 3) Conduct regular audits of device configurations and storage to detect any unauthorized access or data leakage. 4) Implement strict access control policies for personnel who manage or maintain these devices, ensuring only trusted individuals have physical access. 5) If firmware updates are not immediately available, consider isolating affected devices on secure network segments and monitoring for unusual activity. 6) Engage with the vendor for guidance on secure deployment best practices and timelines for patch releases. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on both technical and operational controls tailored to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

Flock Safety LPR (License Plate Reader) devices with firmware through 2.2 have cleartext storage of code.

Impact

For European organizations deploying Flock Safety LPR devices, the impact of this vulnerability is relatively low but still noteworthy. The cleartext storage of sensitive information could allow an attacker with physical access to the device to extract data that might include proprietary code or configuration details. While this does not immediately compromise the operational integrity or availability of the LPR system, it could facilitate further attacks or reverse engineering efforts. In law enforcement or private security contexts, where these devices are often used to monitor vehicle movements, unauthorized data disclosure could lead to privacy concerns or undermine trust in surveillance systems. However, since exploitation requires physical access and high complexity, the risk of remote exploitation or widespread compromise is minimal. Organizations should consider the sensitivity of the stored data and the physical security of deployed devices when assessing their risk posture.

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, 00:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-312

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats