CVE-2025-56578VulnerabilityPublished 10 Sep 2025Updated 15 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-56578: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 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

1. Implement strong authentication controls around RTSPtoWeb interfaces, including multi-factor authentication where possible. 2. Restrict network access to RTSPtoWeb services using firewalls and network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted hosts only. 3. Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual access patterns or failed authentication attempts that could indicate exploitation attempts. 4. Employ application-layer gateways or reverse proxies to enforce additional authentication and input validation. 5. Educate users and administrators about social engineering risks and the importance of not interacting with suspicious prompts or links. 6. Regularly audit and update RTSPtoWeb deployments, applying patches promptly once available. 7. Consider isolating RTSPtoWeb servers in dedicated environments with minimal privileges to reduce the impact of potential compromise. 8. Use endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to detect anomalous code execution behaviors related to this vulnerability.

Description

An issue in RTSPtoWeb v.2.4.3 allows a remote attacker to obtain sensitive information and executearbitrary code via the lack of authentication mechanisms

Impact

For European organizations, the vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive streaming data, including potentially confidential video feeds or metadata, undermining privacy and compliance with regulations such as GDPR. The ability to execute arbitrary code elevates the risk to system integrity, potentially allowing attackers to deploy malware, pivot within networks, or disrupt services indirectly. Organizations in sectors like critical infrastructure, public safety, transportation, and media that rely on RTSPtoWeb for real-time video streaming are particularly vulnerable. The exposure could result in reputational damage, regulatory penalties, and operational disruptions. Since the vulnerability requires some privilege and user interaction, insider threats or social engineering could facilitate exploitation. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive defense, but the medium severity score suggests that the threat should not be underestimated.

CWE-287Improper Authentication (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
When an actor claims to have a given identity, the product does not prove or insufficiently proves that the claim is correct.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an authentication framework or library such as the OWASP ESAPI Authentication feature.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
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)
Attack patterns
Fake the Source of Data (opens in a new tab)
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Session Hijacking (opens in a new tab)
Token Impersonation (opens in a new tab)
Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/God-mellon/article/blob/main/RTSPtoWeb-Unauthorized%20Access%20Vulnerability.pdf (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Oct 2025, 16:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-287

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats