CVE-2025-5634VulnerabilityPublished 5 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-5634: PCMan FTP Server · Buffer Overflow

Affects PCMan FTP ServerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 5 Jun 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 2026-10-26.

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PCMan FTP Server	Affected =2.0.7	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on reducing the attack surface by disabling or restricting access to PCMan FTP Server 2.0.7 instances, especially from untrusted networks. Network-level controls such as firewall rules should block incoming FTP traffic unless absolutely necessary. Where FTP is required, consider isolating the server in a segmented network zone with strict access controls. Monitoring and logging FTP server activity can help detect anomalous NOOP command usage indicative of exploitation attempts. Organizations should plan to upgrade to a patched version once available or migrate to more secure file transfer solutions supporting encrypted protocols like SFTP or FTPS. In the interim, applying intrusion prevention system (IPS) signatures that detect malformed NOOP commands or buffer overflow attempts can provide additional protection. Regular vulnerability scanning and asset inventory to identify affected servers are critical. Additionally, educating IT staff about this vulnerability and ensuring incident response plans include scenarios involving FTP server compromise will improve preparedness.

Description

A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in PCMan FTP Server 2.0.7. This affects an unknown part of the component NOOP Command Handler. The manipulation leads to buffer overflow. It is possible to initiate the attack remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a notable risk, especially for those relying on PCMan FTP Server 2.0.7 for file transfer services. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized remote code execution, allowing attackers to compromise the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of affected systems. This could result in data breaches, service disruptions, or use of compromised servers as footholds for further network intrusion. Given the FTP server's role in handling sensitive file transfers, exploitation could expose critical business data or intellectual property. The medium CVSS score might underestimate the real-world impact because the exploit requires no authentication and can be launched remotely. Organizations with legacy or unpatched FTP infrastructure are particularly vulnerable. Additionally, the lack of patches means organizations must rely on alternative mitigations until a fix is released. The threat is exacerbated by the public availability of exploit code, increasing the likelihood of opportunistic attacks. European entities in sectors such as finance, manufacturing, and government, which often use FTP for legacy systems or inter-organizational file exchanges, could face operational and reputational damage if exploited.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 03:26 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats