CVE-2025-55629VulnerabilityPublished 22 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-55629: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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 11% 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:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within 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 2026-10-25.

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 this vulnerability, European organizations should immediately verify the firmware version of their Reolink Smart 2K+ Plug-in Wi-Fi Video Doorbells and avoid using the affected firmware version 3.0.0.4662_2503122283. In the interim, restrict network access to the devices by placing them behind firewalls or VLANs that limit exposure to untrusted networks. Implement network segmentation to isolate IoT devices from critical IT infrastructure. Employ strong network-level authentication and monitoring to detect unusual access patterns. Disable remote management features if not required. Additionally, conduct regular audits of device user accounts and credentials to detect unauthorized changes. For organizations with large deployments, consider alternative devices with better security track records until a patch is released. Finally, raise user awareness about the risks of IoT device compromise and enforce strict physical security controls to prevent local tampering.

Description

Insecure permissions in Reolink Smart 2K+ Plug-in Wi-Fi Video Doorbell with Chime - firmware v3.0.0.4662_2503122283 allow attackers to arbitrarily change other users' passwords via manipulation of the userName value.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those using Reolink Smart 2K+ Plug-in Wi-Fi Video Doorbells in office premises, residential buildings, or critical infrastructure sites, this vulnerability poses significant risks. Unauthorized password changes can lead to complete compromise of the device, allowing attackers to gain access to live video feeds, recorded footage, and potentially use the device as a foothold into the broader network. This could result in breaches of confidentiality, privacy violations, and unauthorized surveillance. Additionally, attackers could disrupt availability by locking out legitimate users or disabling the device. Organizations relying on these devices for physical security monitoring may face increased risk of undetected intrusions or sabotage. The vulnerability could also be exploited for lateral movement within networks if the device is connected to internal systems. Given the increasing adoption of IoT security devices in Europe, the impact extends beyond individual users to organizational security postures and compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR.

CWE-378Creation of Temporary File With Insecure Permissions (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
Opening temporary files without appropriate measures or controls can leave the file, its contents and any function that it impacts vulnerable to attack.
Requirements
Many contemporary languages have functions which properly handle this condition. Older C temp file functions are especially susceptible.
Implementation
Ensure that you use proper file permissions. This can be achieved by using a safe temp file function. Temporary files should be writable and readable only by the process that owns the file.
Implementation
Randomize temporary file names. This can also be achieved by using a safe temp-file function. This will ensure that temporary files will not be created in predictable places.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

relieved-knuckle-264.notion.site/Account-Takeover-Change-password-23c437003642806bb821fec983aedb9f?source=copy_link (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Aug 2025, 17:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-378

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats