VulnerabilityPublished 12 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-49192: SICK Field Analytics · Clickjacking

Affects SICK Field AnalyticsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 12 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SICK AG SICK Field Analytics	Affected *	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block suspicious framing attempts or HTTP headers indicative of clickjacking attacks. 2) Restrict access to the SICK Field Analytics web interface to trusted networks or VPNs to reduce exposure to external attackers. 3) Educate users about the risks of clicking on links or visiting untrusted websites that could host malicious frames targeting the application. 4) Monitor user activity logs for unusual or unexpected interactions that may indicate clickjacking exploitation. 5) Coordinate with SICK AG to obtain patches or updates as soon as they become available, and apply them promptly. 6) If possible, implement client-side browser extensions or security policies that block framing of trusted applications. 7) Conduct penetration testing and security assessments focusing on UI layer protections and frame-busting techniques to validate the effectiveness of mitigations. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on network-level controls, user awareness, and proactive monitoring tailored to the specific product and vulnerability.

Description

The web application is vulnerable to clickjacking attacks. The site can be embedded into another frame, allowing an attacker to trick a user into clicking on something different from what the user perceives. This could potentially reveal confidential information or allow others to take control of their computer while clicking on seemingly innocuous objects.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing SICK Field Analytics, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized manipulation of analytics data or operational parameters if users are tricked into clicking maliciously framed UI elements. While confidentiality impact is minimal, integrity concerns are notable, especially in industrial or manufacturing contexts where SICK Field Analytics is used for monitoring critical processes. An attacker could cause erroneous data inputs or trigger unintended commands, potentially disrupting operational decision-making or causing cascading effects in automated systems relying on this data. The absence of availability impact reduces the risk of denial-of-service conditions, but the integrity compromise could still lead to financial loss, operational inefficiencies, or compliance issues, particularly in regulated sectors such as manufacturing, energy, or transportation. The requirement for user interaction limits the attack scope but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments where users may be targeted via phishing or malicious websites. European organizations with remote or web-based access to SICK Field Analytics are particularly at risk, as the vulnerability is exploitable over the network without authentication.

Summary

CVE-2025-49192 identifies a clickjacking vulnerability in the web application component of SICK AG's SICK Field Analytics product. This vulnerability arises from improper restriction of rendered UI layers or frames (CWE-1021), allowing the application to be embedded within an iframe or similar HTML frame elements on an attacker-controlled website. Because the application does not implement defenses such as X-Frame-Options or Content Security Policy frame-ancestors directives, an attacker can overlay transparent or misleading UI elements to trick users into interacting with the embedded application unknowingly. This user interaction could lead to unintended actions within the application, potentially causing unauthorized changes or disclosure of sensitive information. The vulnerability affects all versions of SICK Field Analytics as of the published date (June 12, 2025). The CVSS v3.1 base score is 4.3 (medium severity), reflecting that the attack vector is network-based (remote), requires no privileges, but does require user interaction. The impact primarily affects the integrity of the application, with no direct confidentiality or availability impact indicated. No known exploits are currently in the wild, and no patches have been released at the time of publication. The vulnerability is significant in environments where SICK Field Analytics is used to monitor or analyze industrial or field data, as unauthorized user actions could disrupt analytics or lead to misinterpretation of data. Given the nature of clickjacking, the attack depends on social engineering to induce user clicks on disguised UI elements, which could lead to control actions or data manipulation within the application interface.

CWE-1021Improper Restriction of Rendered UI Layers or Frames (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The web application does not restrict or incorrectly restricts frame objects or UI layers that belong to another application or domain.
Implementation
The use of X-Frame-Options allows developers of web content to restrict the usage of their application within the form of overlays, frames, or iFrames. The developer can indicate from which domains can frame the content.
Implementation
A developer can use a "frame-breaker" script in each page that should not be framed. This is very helpful for legacy browsers that do not support X-Frame-Options security feature previously mentioned.
Implementation
This defense-in-depth technique can be used to prevent the improper usage of frames in web applications. It prioritizes the valid sources of data to be loaded into the application through the usage of declarative policies.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Content Security Policy (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.4.3 (opens in a new tab)
V14.4.7 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Clickjacking (opens in a new tab)
Flash File Overlay (opens in a new tab)
iFrame Overlay (opens in a new tab)
Task Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Tapjacking (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 12 Jun 2025, 14:40 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1021

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats