VulnerabilityPublished 28 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-51643: Information Exposure

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.4 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.4Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Physical
Attack Complexity: Low
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: 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: 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 28 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 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 implement strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized access to GPS tracker devices, especially in field deployments. This includes secure mounting, tamper-evident seals, and regular physical inspections. Where possible, replace or upgrade devices with models that incorporate hardware-based tamper protection or encrypted storage for firmware and configuration data. Network-level mitigations include monitoring for anomalous device communications that may indicate compromised credentials. Organizations should also consider segmenting backend infrastructure to limit exposure if credentials are leaked. Additionally, implementing VPNs or encrypted communication tunnels between devices and backend servers can reduce the risk of data interception even if credentials are exposed. Finally, organizations should engage with the vendor to request firmware updates or patches that add authentication or encryption to the SPI flash access or consider alternative GPS tracking solutions with stronger security postures.

Description

Meitrack T366G-L GPS Tracker devices contain an SPI flash chip (Winbond 25Q64JVSIQ) that is accessible without authentication or tamper protection. An attacker with physical access to the device can use a standard SPI programmer to extract the firmware using flashrom. This results in exposure of sensitive configuration data such as APN credentials, backend server information, and network parameter

Impact

For European organizations utilizing Meitrack T366G-L GPS trackers, this vulnerability poses a confidentiality risk. Exposure of APN credentials and backend server information could allow attackers to intercept or manipulate GPS data transmissions, potentially leading to unauthorized tracking, data leakage, or disruption of fleet management and asset tracking operations. While the vulnerability requires physical access, in scenarios where devices are deployed in unsecured or publicly accessible environments (e.g., logistics vehicles, rental equipment, or outdoor asset tracking), the risk increases. Compromise of backend server information could facilitate targeted attacks against organizational infrastructure. Although the direct impact on device availability and integrity is minimal, the leakage of sensitive network parameters can undermine trust in the GPS tracking system and may lead to regulatory compliance issues related to data protection under GDPR if personal or sensitive location data is involved.

CWE-200Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #20OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes sensitive information to an actor that is not explicitly authorized to have access to that information.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Echo Request Ping (opens in a new tab)
TCP SYN Scan (opens in a new tab)
Enumerate Mail Exchange (MX) Records (opens in a new tab)
DNS Zone Transfers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/NastyCrow/CVE-2025-51643 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 4 Sep 2025, 18:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-200

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats