CVE-2025-56207VulnerabilityPublished 30 Sep 2025Updated 1 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-56207: 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: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% 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 30 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 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, organizations should: 1) Deploy an updated version of the MMO smart contract with corrected '_transfer' logic that explicitly prevents transfers to the zero address by adding validation checks before token transfer execution. 2) For existing NFTs, implement off-chain monitoring tools to detect and alert on any zero address transfer attempts to enable rapid response. 3) Educate users and custodians about the risk of transferring NFTs to invalid addresses and enforce UI/UX safeguards in wallets and marketplaces to block such transactions. 4) Utilize smart contract upgradeability patterns (e.g., proxy contracts) if supported, to patch the vulnerability without redeploying new contracts. 5) Conduct thorough security audits of all NFT-related smart contracts to identify similar logic flaws. 6) Coordinate with Ethereum infrastructure providers and NFT marketplaces to blacklist or flag transactions involving the affected contract address to prevent accidental asset loss. 7) Maintain comprehensive backups of NFT ownership metadata off-chain to assist in dispute resolution or recovery efforts if feasible. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on contract-level fixes, user interface controls, and ecosystem coordination to minimize exploitation risk and asset loss.

Description

A security flaw in the '_transfer' function of a smart contract implementation for Money Making Opportunity (MMO), an Ethereum ERC721 Non-Fungible Token (NFT) project, allows users or attackers to transfer NFTs to the zero address, leading to permanent asset loss and non-compliance with the ERC721 standard. The eth address is 0x41d3d86a84c8507a7bc14f2491ec4d188fa944e7, contract name is MoneyMakingOpportunity, and compiler version is v0.8.17+commit.8df45f5f.

Impact

For European organizations engaged in NFT trading, custody, or platform development, this vulnerability poses a risk of permanent asset loss, which can damage user trust and financial value. NFT marketplaces or custodial wallets that support the MMO NFT contract could face reputational damage and potential financial liability if users lose assets due to this flaw. The non-compliance with ERC721 standards may also affect interoperability with other Ethereum-based services and smart contracts, limiting the utility of affected NFTs. Although confidentiality and integrity impacts are minimal, the availability impact is significant because NFTs sent to the zero address are irretrievable. This could lead to user dissatisfaction, legal challenges, and increased support costs. Furthermore, the vulnerability may be exploited by malicious actors to sabotage NFT holdings or disrupt marketplace operations. European regulators focusing on digital asset security and consumer protection may scrutinize affected platforms, increasing compliance risks. Organizations must assess exposure and implement mitigations promptly to protect digital assets and maintain compliance with blockchain standards.

CWE-1259Improper Restriction of Security Token Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The System-On-A-Chip (SoC) implements a Security Token mechanism to differentiate what actions are allowed or disallowed when a transaction originates from an entity. However, the Security Tokens are improperly protected.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Security Token assignment review checks for design inconsistency and common weaknesses.; Security-Token definition and programming flow is tested in both pre-silicon and post-silicon testing.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Exploit Non-Production Interfaces (opens in a new tab)
Exploitation of Improperly Controlled Hardware Security Identifiers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/Monekon/CVE/blob/main/Vulnerabilities/MMO_Transfer_to_ZeroAddress.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Oct 2025, 04:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1259

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats