VulnerabilityPublished 22 Sep 2025Updated 17 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-55886: Protection Mechanism Failure

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 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 30% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 22 Sep 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 CVE-2025-55886, organizations should implement strict authorization checks on the 'fe_uid' parameter within the payment history API to ensure that users can only access their own data. This includes validating that the authenticated user's identity matches the requested user ID or enforcing role-based access controls. Conduct a comprehensive audit of all API endpoints handling user-specific data to identify and remediate similar IDOR vulnerabilities. Employ logging and monitoring to detect unusual access patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. Additionally, implement multi-factor authentication to reduce the risk of account compromise. If possible, apply rate limiting on API calls to hinder automated exploitation. Since no patches are currently available, consider temporary compensating controls such as restricting API access or isolating sensitive endpoints until a fix is released. Finally, educate developers on secure coding practices related to access control and parameter validation.

Description

An Insecure Direct Object Reference (IDOR) vulnerability was discovered in ARD. The flaw exists in the `fe_uid` parameter of the payment history API endpoint. An authenticated attacker can manipulate this parameter to access the payment history of other users without authorization.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive payment history data, which can lead to privacy violations, regulatory non-compliance (e.g., GDPR), reputational damage, and potential financial fraud. Since the vulnerability requires authentication, insider threats or compromised accounts could be leveraged to exploit this flaw. The exposure of payment histories could also facilitate targeted phishing or social engineering attacks. Although the vulnerability does not affect system integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach alone is significant, especially given Europe's strict data protection laws. Organizations handling large volumes of payment data or operating in regulated sectors such as finance, healthcare, or e-commerce are particularly at risk. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks once the vulnerability becomes widely known.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (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 17 Nov 2025, 19:28 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats