CVE-2025-53627VulnerabilityPublished 29 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-53627: meshtastic firmware · Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input

Affects meshtastic firmwareSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 2.7.15 : update meshtastic firmware when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.7.15

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
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: 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: 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 29 Dec 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 2026-10-26.

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

The primary mitigation is to upgrade all Meshtastic firmware instances to version 2.7.15 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. Organizations should audit their device inventories to identify affected versions and enforce firmware updates promptly. Additionally, developers of Meshtastic-based applications should implement explicit indicators to inform users whether a direct message was decrypted using PKI or legacy encryption, enhancing user awareness and trust. Network administrators should restrict access to shared channel keys and monitor for anomalous message injection attempts. Employing network segmentation and access controls can limit the exposure of the shared keys. For deployments where upgrading is temporarily not feasible, organizations should consider disabling legacy encryption fallback if configurable or isolate vulnerable devices from critical networks. Finally, integrating cryptographic validation and message authentication at the application layer can provide an additional security layer against spoofing.

Description

Meshtastic is an open source mesh networking solution. The Meshtastic firmware (starting from version 2.5) introduces asymmetric encryption (PKI) for direct messages, but when the `pki_encrypted` flag is missing, the firmware silently falls back to legacy AES-256-CTR channel encryption. This was an intentional decision to maintain backwards compatibility. However, the end-user applications, like Web app, iOS/Android app, and applications built on top of Meshtastic using the SDK, did not have a way to differentiate between end-to-end encrypted DMs and the legacy DMs. This creates a downgrade attack path where adversaries who know a shared channel key can craft and inject spoofed direct messages that are displayed as if they were PKC encrypted. Users are not given any feedback of whether a direct message was decrypted with PKI or with legacy symmetric encryption, undermining the expected security guarantees of the PKI rollout. Version 2.7.15 fixes this issue.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those deploying Meshtastic in critical communication infrastructures, IoT networks, or emergency response systems, this vulnerability poses a risk to message integrity and authenticity. Attackers with access to the shared channel key can inject spoofed messages that appear securely encrypted, potentially misleading users or triggering incorrect automated responses. This can undermine trust in the communication system and may lead to misinformation, operational disruption, or exploitation in coordinated attacks. Although confidentiality is not directly compromised, the integrity loss can have cascading effects in sensitive environments. Given the growing interest in decentralized and resilient communication networks in Europe, particularly in rural or emergency contexts, the impact could be significant if unpatched devices are widely used. The vulnerability also raises compliance concerns under European data protection and cybersecurity regulations, which mandate the integrity and authenticity of communications. Organizations relying on Meshtastic firmware should assess their exposure and prioritize patching to maintain secure operations.

CWE-1287Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/meshtastic/firmware/security/advisories/GHSA-377p-prwp-4hwf (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Dec 2025, 23:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1287

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats