VulnerabilityPublished 27 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-56694: Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% 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:C/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Aug 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 immediately assess their use of lumasoft fotoShare Cloud and identify any password-protected albums that may be exposed. 2) Monitor network traffic and application logs for unusual access patterns or unauthorized retrieval attempts of photo albums. 3) Implement compensating controls such as network segmentation or access restrictions to limit exposure of the fotoShare Cloud service to trusted users only. 4) Engage with lumasoft to obtain timelines for a security patch or update that enforces server-side password validation. 5) Educate users about the risk and encourage them to avoid storing highly sensitive images in password-protected albums until the issue is resolved. 6) Consider alternative secure photo sharing solutions that enforce robust server-side access controls. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on immediate containment, monitoring, and vendor engagement tailored to the specifics of this client-side validation flaw.

Description

Client-side password validation (CWE-602) in lumasoft fotoShare Cloud 2025-03-13 allowing unauthenticated attackers to view password-protected photo albums.

Impact

For European organizations using lumasoft fotoShare Cloud, this vulnerability can lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive or private images stored in password-protected albums. This breach of confidentiality can have severe privacy implications, especially under the GDPR framework, which mandates strict protection of personal data. Organizations in sectors such as media, healthcare, education, or any entity using fotoShare Cloud for storing sensitive imagery could suffer reputational damage, legal penalties, and loss of customer trust. Additionally, if the compromised photo albums contain intellectual property or sensitive corporate information, the impact could extend to competitive disadvantage or regulatory non-compliance. The ease of exploitation—no authentication or user interaction required—means attackers can potentially automate unauthorized access at scale. Although no active exploits are known, the vulnerability's presence in a cloud-based photo sharing platform increases the risk of widespread data exposure. European organizations relying on this software must consider the potential for data breaches and the associated compliance risks under EU data protection laws.

CWE-602Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product is composed of a server that relies on the client to implement a mechanism that is intended to protect the server.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely.
Architecture and Design
If some degree of trust is required between the two entities, then use integrity checking and strong authentication to ensure that the inputs are coming from a trusted source.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Authorization Testing Automation (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V4.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Manipulating Hidden Fields (opens in a new tab)
Create Malicious Client (opens in a new tab)
Removing Important Client Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Removing/short-circuiting 'Purse' logic: removing/mutating 'cash' decrements (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (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 27 Aug 2025, 14:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-602

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats