VulnerabilityPublished 10 Sep 2025Updated 22 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-56466: Dietly · Use of Hard-coded Credentials

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% 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:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 10 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 this vulnerability effectively, European organizations and users should: 1) Immediately audit the use of Dietly v1.25.0 within their environments and identify all affected devices. 2) Monitor for updates or patches from the vendor addressing this vulnerability and prioritize prompt application once available. 4) Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or mobile threat defense (MTD) tools to detect anomalous app behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. 5) Educate users about the risks of using outdated or unpatched applications and encourage regular updates. 6) For developers or integrators, avoid embedding credentials in application code; instead, use secure credential storage mechanisms and dynamic authentication flows. 7) Implement network-level controls such as API gateways with strong authentication and anomaly detection to prevent misuse of compromised credentials. 8) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on mobile applications and their backend integrations to detect similar vulnerabilities proactively.

Description

Hardcoded credentials in Dietly v1.25.0 for android allows attackers to gain sensitive information.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those involved in health, nutrition, or wellness sectors that may use or integrate Dietly for dietary management or related services, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk. Attackers leveraging hardcoded credentials can bypass authentication controls, leading to unauthorized data disclosure. This could result in exposure of personal health information, user profiles, or other sensitive data, potentially violating GDPR and other privacy regulations. The confidentiality breach could damage organizational reputation, invite regulatory fines, and erode user trust. Additionally, if these credentials provide access to backend APIs or cloud services, attackers might pivot to more extensive network intrusions or data exfiltration. The lack of required privileges or user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing the likelihood of automated or mass attacks targeting vulnerable devices across Europe. Mobile workforce and BYOD policies in European enterprises could further expand the attack surface, as compromised devices may connect to corporate networks.

CWE-798Use of Hard-coded Credentials (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains hard-coded credentials, such as a password or cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
For outbound authentication: store passwords, keys, and other credentials outside of the code in a strongly-protected, encrypted configuration file or database that is protected from access by all outsiders, including other local users on the same system. Properly protect the key (CWE-320).
Architecture and Design
For inbound authentication: Rather than hard-code a default username and password, key, or other authentication credentials for first time logins, utilize a "first login" mode that requires the user to enter a unique strong password or key.
Architecture and Design
If the product must contain hard-coded credentials or they cannot be removed, perform access control checks and limit which entities can access the feature that requires the hard-coded credentials. For example, a feature might only be enabled through the system console instead of through a network connection.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.10.4 (opens in a new tab)
V6.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Read Sensitive Constants Within an Executable (opens in a new tab)
Try Common or Default Usernames and Passwords (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/dewcode91/security-research/blob/main/CVE-2025-56466.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 23 Sep 2025, 00:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-798

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats