VulnerabilityPublished 22 Aug 2025Updated 1 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-55622: Reolink · Object Hijack

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% 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:L/I:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

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: 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: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 Aug 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

Organizations should implement network segmentation to isolate Reolink devices from untrusted networks, minimizing exposure to remote exploitation. Employ strict firewall rules to restrict inbound traffic to only trusted sources and management interfaces. Monitor device behavior for anomalies indicative of task hijacking or service disruption. Since no patches are currently available, consider deploying compensating controls such as VPN access for device management and disabling unnecessary services or features that could be leveraged for exploitation. Engage with the vendor for clarification on the vulnerability status and request timely security updates or configuration guidance. Additionally, maintain up-to-date asset inventories to quickly identify affected devices and plan for eventual patch deployment once available.

Description

Reolink v4.54.0.4.20250526 was discovered to contain a task hijacking vulnerability due to inappropriate taskAffinity settings. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because it is intentional behavior to ensure a predictable user experience.

Impact

For European organizations using Reolink devices, particularly in security surveillance or IoT deployments, this vulnerability could lead to partial service disruption or limited data exposure. The confidentiality impact, while low, could expose sensitive surveillance metadata or device state information. The availability impact could result in denial of service conditions, affecting continuous monitoring capabilities critical for physical security. Given the lack of required privileges or user interaction, attackers could exploit this remotely, increasing risk in exposed network environments. Organizations relying on Reolink for perimeter security or critical infrastructure monitoring may face operational risks and potential compliance issues under GDPR if personal data confidentiality is compromised. However, the absence of known exploits and the supplier's dispute may reduce immediate risk but should not lead to complacency.

CWE-491Public cloneable() Method Without Final ('Object Hijack') (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
A class has a cloneable() method that is not declared final, which allows an object to be created without calling the constructor. This can cause the object to be in an unexpected state.
Implementation
Make the cloneable() method final.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

relieved-knuckle-264.notion.site/Reolink-Task-Hijacking-21a437003642808ba21fd79530a21e96 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 2 Sep 2025, 00:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-491

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats