VulnerabilityPublished 25 Sep 2025Updated 26 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-48707: Stormshield Network Security · Improper Access Control

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 5.0.1 : patch affected systems soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.0.1

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

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

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: 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 25 Sep 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should prioritize upgrading all affected Stormshield Network Security devices to version 5.0.1 or later, where the issue is resolved. In the absence of immediate patch availability, organizations should review and tighten HA configurations to ensure TPM authentication information is not shared or replicated across administrators unnecessarily. Implement strict access controls and audit logging around administrative accounts and TPM-related operations to detect anomalous access patterns. Network segmentation should be enforced to limit exposure of SNS management interfaces to trusted networks only. Additionally, organizations should consider deploying multi-factor authentication for administrative access to SNS devices to reduce the risk of credential misuse. Regularly monitoring vendor advisories and threat intelligence feeds for updates or exploit reports related to this CVE is also recommended. Finally, conducting internal security assessments and penetration tests focusing on HA configurations and TPM usage can help identify and remediate potential weaknesses before exploitation.

Description

An issue was discovered in Stormshield Network Security (SNS) before 5.0.1. TPM authentication information could, in some HA use cases, be shared among administrators, which can cause secret sharing.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those relying on Stormshield Network Security appliances for perimeter defense and network segmentation, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. The unauthorized disclosure of TPM authentication secrets could allow attackers to impersonate legitimate administrators or bypass security controls that rely on TPM-based authentication. This could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive network segments, exposure of confidential data, and potential compromise of critical infrastructure. Given that Stormshield is a European cybersecurity vendor with strong market presence in France, Germany, and other EU countries, organizations in these regions are more likely to be affected. The vulnerability undermines trust in hardware-based security mechanisms, which are often used to meet stringent European data protection regulations such as GDPR. Exploitation could result in data breaches with legal and financial repercussions, damage to reputation, and operational disruptions. The lack of required privileges or user interaction for exploitation increases the risk of automated or remote attacks targeting vulnerable SNS devices.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

advisories.stormshield.eu/2025-003/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Oct 2025, 00:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats