VulnerabilityPublished 14 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-54340: Desktop Alert PingAlert · Weak Cryptography

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.09% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: High
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: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
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 14 Nov 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

Immediately audit all Desktop Alert PingAlert Application Server deployments to identify affected versions (6.1.0.11 to 6.1.1.2).
Engage with the vendor to obtain patches or updates that replace the broken cryptographic algorithms with secure, industry-standard algorithms such as AES-256 or modern elliptic curve cryptography.
If patches are unavailable, consider disabling or isolating the vulnerable cryptographic functions or modules where feasible.
Restrict local access to the Application Server to only trusted administrators and enforce strict privilege management to minimize the risk of exploitation.
Implement enhanced monitoring and logging for local access and cryptographic operations to detect suspicious activities.
Conduct a cryptographic configuration review to ensure all cryptographic components comply with current best practices and standards (e.g., NIST SP 800-131A).
Train system administrators on the risks associated with weak cryptography and the importance of applying updates promptly.
Prepare incident response plans specific to potential confidentiality breaches involving cryptographic weaknesses.
Consider network segmentation to limit lateral movement opportunities for attackers with local access.
Regularly review and update cryptographic policies to prevent recurrence of similar vulnerabilities.

Description

A vulnerability was found in the Application Server of Desktop Alert PingAlert version 6.1.0.11 to 6.1.1.2. There is a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-54340 is the potential exposure of confidential information processed or stored by the Desktop Alert PingAlert Application Server. Since the vulnerability affects cryptographic algorithms, attackers with local high-privilege access could decrypt sensitive data, undermining confidentiality. This could lead to leakage of internal alerts, security notifications, or other sensitive operational information, which may be exploited for further attacks or espionage. The lack of impact on integrity and availability reduces the risk of service disruption or data tampering. However, the requirement for local high privilege limits the attack surface to insiders or attackers who have already compromised systems. European entities in sectors such as critical infrastructure, emergency services, and large enterprises using PingAlert for alerting may face reputational damage and regulatory consequences if sensitive data is exposed. The medium severity rating reflects the balance between the high confidentiality impact and the difficult exploitation conditions.

CWE-327Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Carefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
Cryptanalysis of Cellular Encryption (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 21 Nov 2025, 18:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-327

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats