VulnerabilityPublished 27 May 2025Updated 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-48742: SIGB PMB · Missing Authentication

Affects SIGB PMBSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 8.0.1.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 8.0.1.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: 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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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: 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 May 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

Upgrade SIGB PMB to 8.0.1.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SIGB PMB	Affected =0 <8.0.1.2	Fixed in 8.0.1.2

AI-suggested

1. Immediate upgrade to SIGB PMB version 8.0.1.2 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. 2. Restrict network access to the installer component by implementing network segmentation and firewall rules to limit exposure only to trusted administrators or systems. 3. Employ application-layer gateways or web application firewalls (WAFs) that can detect and block anomalous installer requests. 4. Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual installer activity or unauthorized access attempts. 5. Implement strict access controls and multi-factor authentication for administrative interfaces related to SIGB PMB to reduce risk from other attack vectors. 6. Conduct regular vulnerability assessments and penetration testing focusing on SIGB PMB deployments to identify potential exploitation attempts. 7. Maintain an incident response plan that includes steps for rapid containment and remediation if exploitation is detected. These measures go beyond generic patching advice by emphasizing network-level controls, monitoring, and proactive security hygiene tailored to the nature of the vulnerability.

Description

The installer in SIGB PMB before and fixed in v.8.0.1.2 allows remote code execution.

Impact

For European organizations using SIGB PMB, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk. Successful exploitation could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code, potentially leading to unauthorized access, data manipulation, or further lateral movement within the network. While the CVSS score indicates medium severity, the actual impact depends on the deployment context of SIGB PMB. If the product is used in critical infrastructure, government, or enterprise environments, the risk escalates due to the potential for sensitive data exposure or disruption of business processes. The absence of authentication on a critical installer function could also facilitate supply chain attacks or unauthorized software modifications. Given that no user interaction or privileges are required, attackers could automate exploitation attempts, increasing the threat surface. However, the high attack complexity somewhat limits widespread exploitation. European organizations should consider the potential for targeted attacks, especially in sectors where SIGB PMB is integral to operations.

Summary

CVE-2025-48742 is a vulnerability identified in the SIGB PMB product, specifically affecting versions prior to 8.0.1.2. The root cause of this vulnerability is a missing authentication mechanism for a critical function within the installer component of SIGB PMB. This flaw corresponds to CWE-306, which denotes 'Missing Authentication for Critical Function.' Due to the lack of authentication, an unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code on the affected system. The vulnerability is remotely exploitable over the network without requiring any user interaction or privileges, but the attack complexity is rated as high, indicating some non-trivial conditions must be met for successful exploitation. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 5.4 (medium severity), reflecting limited impact on confidentiality and integrity, and no impact on availability. The scope is changed, meaning the vulnerability affects components beyond the initially vulnerable component. The vulnerability was published on May 27, 2025, and no known exploits are currently reported in the wild. The lack of authentication on the installer function is critical because installers typically have elevated privileges and control over software deployment, making this a significant security risk if exploited. The vendor has addressed this issue in version 8.0.1.2, and users of earlier versions are advised to upgrade promptly.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (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 6 Jul 2025, 00:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats