VulnerabilityPublished 4 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-53704: MAXHUB Pivot client application · Weak Password Recovery

Affects MAXHUB Pivot client applicationSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 4 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 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
MAXHUB Pivot client application	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation steps include monitoring for unusual password reset requests and account activities within the MAXHUB Pivot client environment. Organizations should enforce strong password policies and consider implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) at the application or network level as a compensating control until an official patch is available. Network-level protections such as restricting access to the Pivot client service to trusted IP ranges and deploying anomaly detection systems can help detect exploitation attempts. MAXHUB should urgently develop and release a patch that strengthens the password reset mechanism by incorporating robust identity verification methods, such as secure token validation, out-of-band confirmation, or MFA integration. User education on recognizing phishing or social engineering attempts related to password resets is also recommended. Regular audits of account activities and immediate revocation of suspicious sessions will reduce the window of opportunity for attackers.

Description

The password reset mechanism for the Pivot client application is weak, and it may allow an attacker to take over the account.

Impact

For European organizations, exploitation of this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized account takeovers within the MAXHUB Pivot client, potentially exposing sensitive corporate communications and collaboration data. This could result in data integrity breaches, unauthorized actions performed under hijacked accounts, and potential lateral movement within enterprise networks if Pivot accounts are linked to broader authentication systems. The impact is particularly critical for sectors relying heavily on MAXHUB for internal communication, such as government agencies, financial institutions, and large enterprises. Loss of trust in communication channels and potential regulatory repercussions under GDPR for compromised personal data are additional concerns. Disruption of business operations and reputational damage could follow if attackers leverage compromised accounts for further attacks or data manipulation.

CWE-640Weak Password Recovery Mechanism for Forgotten Password (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a mechanism for users to recover or change their passwords without knowing the original password, but the mechanism is weak.
Architecture and Design
Make sure that all input supplied by the user to the password recovery mechanism is thoroughly filtered and validated.
Architecture and Design
Do not use standard weak security questions and use several security questions.
Architecture and Design
Make sure that there is throttling on the number of incorrect answers to a security question. Disable the password recovery functionality after a certain (small) number of incorrect guesses.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Choosing and Using Security Questions (opens in a new tab)
Forgot Password (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V2.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Password Recovery Exploitation (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 Dec 2025, 00:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-640

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats