CVE-2025-48393VulnerabilityPublished 6 Aug 2025Updated 9 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-48393: Eaton G4 PDU · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects Eaton G4 PDUSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: Low
Availability: Low

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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Aug 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
Eaton G4 PDU	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately verify the firmware version of their Eaton G4 PDUs and apply the latest firmware update provided by Eaton to remediate this vulnerability. Network segmentation should be enforced to restrict access to management interfaces of PDUs, limiting exposure to untrusted networks and reducing the risk of MitM attacks. Implement strict access controls and monitoring for users with privileges to perform firmware upgrades, ensuring that only authorized personnel can initiate such operations. Employ network-level protections such as TLS interception detection and anomaly-based intrusion detection systems to identify suspicious MitM activities. Additionally, organizations should consider out-of-band management channels for firmware upgrades where possible, minimizing exposure to network-based attacks. Regularly audit and review device configurations and logs for signs of unauthorized access or attempted exploitation. Finally, incorporate this vulnerability into incident response plans and conduct staff training to recognize and respond to potential social engineering or phishing attempts that could facilitate user interaction requirements.

Description

The server identity check mechanism for firmware upgrade performed via command shell is insecurely implemented potentially allowing an attacker to perform a Man-in-the-middle attack. This security issue has been fixed in the latest firmware version of Eaton G4 PDU which is available on the Eaton download center.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of communications during firmware upgrades on Eaton G4 PDUs. These devices are commonly deployed in data centers, industrial facilities, and critical infrastructure environments where power management reliability and security are paramount. A successful MitM attack could lead to interception of sensitive credentials or firmware tampering attempts, potentially enabling further compromise or disruption. Although the integrity and availability impacts are rated lower, any manipulation of firmware could have cascading effects on device operation. Given the reliance on Eaton PDUs in sectors such as manufacturing, telecommunications, and energy within Europe, exploitation could disrupt operations or lead to data breaches. The requirement for user interaction and high privileges limits the ease of exploitation but does not eliminate the risk, especially in environments with less stringent access controls or where insider threats exist. The absence of known exploits in the wild suggests a window of opportunity for proactive patching and mitigation before active attacks emerge.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

eaton.com/content/dam/eaton/company/news-insights/cybersecurity/security-bulletins/etn-va-2025-1002.pdf (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Feb 2026, 10:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats