VulnerabilityPublished 22 Aug 2025Updated 11 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-55625: Reolink · An Open Redirect

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Validate and sanitize all URLs used in redirection mechanisms within Reolink interfaces or associated web portals to ensure only trusted domains are allowed. 2) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) with rules designed to detect and block suspicious redirect patterns targeting Reolink URLs. 3) Educate users about the risks of clicking on unexpected or suspicious links, especially those purporting to come from Reolink or related services. 4) Monitor network traffic for unusual outbound connections that may indicate redirection to malicious sites. 5) Engage with Reolink support to confirm if patches or configuration options are available to restrict or disable the redirect feature. 6) Where possible, restrict access to Reolink management interfaces to trusted networks and users to reduce exposure. 7) Implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) on accounts associated with Reolink devices to limit impact if credentials are compromised via phishing. 8) Regularly review and update security policies to include handling of open redirect risks and incorporate this vulnerability into incident response plans. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on both technical controls and user awareness tailored to the specific nature of this vulnerability.

Description

An open redirect vulnerability in Reolink v4.54.0.4.20250526 allows attackers to redirect users to a malicious site via a crafted URL. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because it is intentional behavior that supports redirection to Alexa URLs, which are not guaranteed to remain at the same domain indefinitely.

Impact

For European organizations using Reolink products, particularly version 4.54.0.4.20250526, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk. The primary impact is on user trust and potential exposure to phishing or malware campaigns initiated via malicious redirects. This can lead to compromised user credentials, unauthorized access, or infection of corporate networks if users are redirected to malicious payloads. The confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts are limited but non-negligible, especially if attackers combine this vulnerability with other attack vectors. Organizations relying on Reolink devices for security surveillance or IoT monitoring could see indirect impacts if attackers exploit this vulnerability to gain footholds or disrupt operations. Additionally, regulatory frameworks in Europe such as GDPR emphasize protecting user data and preventing unauthorized access, so exploitation could lead to compliance issues and reputational damage. The requirement for user interaction reduces the likelihood of automated exploitation but does not eliminate risk, especially in environments where users may be targeted via phishing emails or social engineering campaigns.

CWE-601URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Site Flashing (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 11 Sep 2025, 19:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats