VulnerabilityPublished 5 Nov 2025Updated 6 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-56232: GOG Galaxy · Missing Validation of OpenSSL Certificate

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: 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: 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 5 Nov 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 several targeted measures beyond generic advice: 1) Enforce network segmentation and restrict local network access to trusted devices only, minimizing the attack surface for MitM attacks. 2) Deploy DNS security measures such as DNSSEC validation and use trusted DNS resolvers to prevent DNS spoofing. 3) Use network monitoring tools to detect unusual update traffic patterns or unexpected certificate anomalies related to GOG Galaxy update requests. 4) Encourage or mandate the use of VPNs or encrypted tunnels when accessing untrusted networks to protect update traffic. 5) Engage with GOG Galaxy support or vendor channels to obtain patches or updates that address SSL validation issues as soon as they become available. 6) Educate users about the risks of connecting to insecure networks and the importance of verifying update sources. 7) Consider application whitelisting or endpoint protection solutions that can detect or block unauthorized code execution resulting from malicious updates. 8) If possible, temporarily restrict or monitor GOG Galaxy update functionality until a secure version is deployed.

Description

GOG Galaxy 2.0.0.2 suffers from Missing SSL Certificate Validation. An attacker who controls the local network, DNS, or a proxy can perform a man-in-the-middle (MitM) attack to intercept update requests and replace installer or update packages with malicious files.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is the potential compromise of systems running GOG Galaxy 2.0.0.2, which is popular among gaming communities and some software distribution scenarios. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized code execution, data theft, or further network compromise. Confidentiality is highly impacted as attackers can inject malicious payloads that may exfiltrate sensitive information. Integrity is moderately affected since malicious updates can alter software behavior, though availability remains unaffected. Organizations with employees or users who install or update software through GOG Galaxy are at risk, especially if they operate in environments with untrusted or poorly secured local networks, such as public Wi-Fi or corporate networks without strict segmentation. This vulnerability could also be leveraged as a foothold for broader attacks within enterprise networks if exploited. Given the medium severity and the requirement for local network access, the threat is more pronounced in environments with lax network security controls or where attackers have insider access or can manipulate DNS/proxy infrastructure.

CWE-599Missing Validation of OpenSSL Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product uses OpenSSL and trusts or uses a certificate without using the SSL_get_verify_result() function to ensure that the certificate satisfies all necessary security requirements.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that proper authentication is included in the system design.
Implementation
Understand and properly implement all checks necessary to ensure the identity of entities involved in encrypted communications.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
V9.2.3 (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 12 Nov 2025, 20:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-599

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats