VulnerabilityPublished 14 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-54342: Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.3Low

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:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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 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 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 CVE-2025-54342, European organizations should: 1) Review and harmonize security policies related to Desktop Alert PingAlert to eliminate incompatible configurations that expose sensitive information. 2) Restrict local access to the Application Server to only trusted and necessary personnel, employing strict access controls and monitoring. 3) Implement robust endpoint security measures to detect and prevent unauthorized local access or privilege escalation attempts. 4) Conduct regular audits of sensitive data handling within the application to identify and remediate potential exposures. 5) Monitor logs and alerts for unusual access patterns or attempts to access sensitive information. 6) Engage with the vendor to obtain patches or updates as soon as they become available and plan timely deployment. 7) Consider network segmentation to isolate systems running vulnerable versions and reduce exposure. 8) Educate users with local access about the risks and enforce least privilege principles. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on policy alignment, access restriction, and proactive monitoring tailored to the specific nature of this vulnerability.

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 Exposure of Sensitive Information because of Incompatible Policies.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-54342 is the potential unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information within environments using Desktop Alert PingAlert Application Server versions 6.1.0.11 to 6.1.1.2. This could include internal alerts, notifications, or other confidential data managed by the software. Although the vulnerability requires local access, the exposure of sensitive data could facilitate privilege escalation, insider threats, or lateral movement within networks. Sectors such as government, emergency services, and critical infrastructure that rely on Desktop Alert PingAlert for communication may face increased risk of information leakage, which could undermine operational security and trust. The low severity and local access requirement reduce the likelihood of widespread exploitation, but insider threats or compromised local accounts could exploit this vulnerability. The absence of integrity or availability impact means system operations are unlikely to be disrupted directly by this vulnerability.

CWE-312Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to encrypt the data at rest.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
In some systems/environments such as cloud, the use of "double encryption" (at both the software and hardware layer) might be required, and the developer might be solely responsible for both layers, instead of shared responsibility with the administrator of the broader system/environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data (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-312

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats