CVE-2025-56800VulnerabilityPublished 21 Oct 2025Updated 22 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-56800: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% 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:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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 21 Oct 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

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should: 1) Restrict local access to workstations running the Reolink desktop application by enforcing strict physical security and endpoint access controls. 2) Implement OS-level user account controls and session locking to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the application or modifying its files. 3) Monitor and restrict the ability to modify application files or Electron resource files, potentially using application whitelisting or integrity monitoring tools. 4) Encourage or require users to upgrade to a patched version once available; in the meantime, consider disabling the local lock screen feature if feasible. 5) Use full disk encryption and secure boot mechanisms to reduce the risk of unauthorized local modifications. 6) Educate users about the risks of local tampering and enforce policies against unauthorized software modifications. 7) Consider network segmentation and limiting remote desktop or remote access capabilities to reduce the risk of attackers gaining local access remotely. 8) Engage with Reolink for updates or patches addressing this vulnerability and track vendor advisories closely.

Description

Reolink desktop application 8.18.12 contains a vulnerability in its local authentication mechanism. The application implements lock screen password logic entirely on the client side using JavaScript within an Electron resource file. Because the password is stored and returned via a modifiable JavaScript property(a.settingsManager.lockScreenPassword), an attacker can patch the return value to bypass authentication. NOTE: this is disputed by the Supplier because the lock-screen bypass would only occur if the local user modified his own instance of the application.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability is primarily on the confidentiality and integrity of video surveillance data accessed through the Reolink desktop application. If an attacker gains local access to a workstation running the vulnerable version, they can bypass the lock screen and potentially view or manipulate surveillance feeds or settings without proper authentication. This could lead to unauthorized surveillance, privacy violations, or tampering with security footage. However, since exploitation requires local access and modification of the application instance, the risk is mitigated in environments with strong physical and endpoint security controls. Organizations relying on Reolink for security monitoring should consider the risk that insiders or attackers with physical or remote desktop access could exploit this vulnerability to circumvent local authentication. The lack of remote exploitability limits the broader impact but does not eliminate insider threat risks. This vulnerability could be more critical in shared workstation environments or where endpoint security is lax.

CWE-290Authentication Bypass by Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
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
V3.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Web Services API Signature Forgery Leveraging Hash Function Extension Weakness (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Misrepresentation (opens in a new tab)
Session Credential Falsification through Prediction (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 28 Oct 2025, 22:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-290

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats