VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025Updated 7 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-55311: Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 2025.2 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2025.2, 13.2

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 11 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 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

If you cannot patch yet, disabling or restricting JavaScript execution within PDFs in Foxit settings can reduce the attack surface. Implementing strict email filtering and sandboxing for PDF attachments can help prevent malicious PDFs from reaching end users. Training users to recognize suspicious PDFs and avoid opening untrusted documents is critical. Additionally, organizations should consider deploying document integrity verification tools that do not solely rely on the application's modification status flag but perform cryptographic validation of signatures independently. Regular audits of signed documents and establishing multi-factor verification for critical document approvals can further mitigate risks. Finally, monitoring for unusual document modification patterns and integrating endpoint detection solutions that flag suspicious PDF behaviors can enhance detection capabilities.

Description

An issue was discovered in Foxit PDF and Editor for Windows and macOS before 13.2 and 2025 before 2025.2. A crafted PDF can use JavaScript to alter annotation content and subsequently clear the file's modification status via JavaScript interfaces. This circumvents digital signature verification by hiding document modifications, allowing an attacker to mislead users about the document's integrity and compromise the trustworthiness of signed PDFs.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of digitally signed documents, which are commonly used in legal, financial, and governmental transactions. The ability to alter annotations and clear modification flags can enable attackers to forge or manipulate contracts, official communications, or compliance documents without detection. This undermines trust in digital signatures and could lead to financial losses, legal disputes, and reputational damage. Sectors such as banking, insurance, legal services, and public administration are particularly vulnerable due to their reliance on signed PDFs for critical workflows. Additionally, the widespread use of Foxit PDF in Europe, especially in medium to large enterprises seeking cost-effective PDF solutions, increases the attack surface. Although no confidentiality or availability impacts are noted, the integrity compromise alone can have cascading effects on business processes and regulatory compliance, especially under GDPR and eIDAS frameworks that emphasize data and document integrity.

CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

foxit.com/support/security-bulletins.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jan 2026, 19:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats