VulnerabilityPublished 7 Jul 2025Updated 8 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-52492: Use of Hard-coded Credentials

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 4.6 : patch Paxton Paxton10 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: Paxton Paxton10 before 4.6
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.6

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 7 Jul 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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately verify their Paxton10 firmware versions and upgrade to version 4.6 SR6 or later once available. If you cannot patch yet, organizations should restrict access to firmware files and avoid downloading firmware from untrusted sources. Network segmentation should be enforced to isolate Paxton10 devices and limit their communication with external services like Twilio. Organizations should also audit Twilio account activity for suspicious access or usage patterns and rotate API credentials associated with Paxton10 systems. Implementing multi-factor authentication and IP whitelisting on Twilio accounts can reduce the risk of unauthorized access even if credentials are compromised. Monitoring network traffic for anomalous connections to Twilio endpoints and deploying intrusion detection systems tuned for such activity can provide early warnings. Finally, organizations should engage with Paxton support for timely updates and follow vendor advisories closely.

Description

A vulnerability has been discovered in the firmware of Paxton Paxton10 before 4.6 SR6. The firmware file, rootfs.tar.gz, contains hard-coded credentials for the Twilio API. A remote attacker who obtains a copy of the firmware can extract these credentials. This could allow the attacker to gain unauthorized access to the associated Twilio account, leading to information disclosure, potential service disruption, and unauthorized use of the Twilio services.

Impact

For European organizations using Paxton Paxton10 systems, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk. Access control systems are critical for physical security in corporate, governmental, and industrial environments. Unauthorized access to the Twilio API credentials could allow attackers to intercept or manipulate communications related to access events, alarms, or user notifications, leading to information leakage about personnel movements or security configurations. Furthermore, disruption of Twilio services could impair real-time alerts, delaying incident response and increasing exposure to physical security breaches. The confidentiality breach could also extend to other systems integrated with Twilio, amplifying the impact. Given the widespread use of Paxton10 in European commercial and public sectors, exploitation could undermine trust in physical security infrastructure and cause operational disruptions. The lack of required authentication or user interaction for exploitation increases the threat level, making it feasible for remote attackers to leverage this vulnerability without insider access.

CWE-798Use of Hard-coded Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
For outbound authentication: store passwords, keys, and other credentials outside of the code in a strongly-protected, encrypted configuration file or database that is protected from access by all outsiders, including other local users on the same system. Properly protect the key (CWE-320).
Architecture and Design
For inbound authentication: Rather than hard-code a default username and password, key, or other authentication credentials for first time logins, utilize a "first login" mode that requires the user to enter a unique strong password or key.
Architecture and Design
If the product must contain hard-coded credentials or they cannot be removed, perform access control checks and limit which entities can access the feature that requires the hard-coded credentials. For example, a feature might only be enabled through the system console instead of through a network connection.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.10.4 (opens in a new tab)
V6.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Read Sensitive Constants Within an Executable (opens in a new tab)
Try Common or Default Usernames and Passwords (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Jul 2025, 21:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-798

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats