CVE-2025-56802VulnerabilityPublished 21 Oct 2025Updated 22 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-56802: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-56801

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: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% 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:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 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

European organizations should immediately restrict local access to systems running the Reolink desktop application by enforcing strict access controls and endpoint security policies. Use disk encryption and strong OS-level authentication to reduce the risk of unauthorized local access. Monitor endpoints for suspicious activity indicative of local compromise. Avoid storing sensitive configuration data on shared or multi-user systems. Regularly audit installed software versions and configurations to identify vulnerable instances. Engage with Reolink support to obtain official guidance and request timely patches or updates addressing this vulnerability. Consider isolating Reolink management workstations from general user environments. If possible, export and securely store configuration data externally to minimize exposure. Implement network segmentation to limit lateral movement from compromised hosts. Finally, prepare incident response plans to address potential data exposure scenarios involving this vulnerability.

Description

The Reolink desktop application uses a hard-coded and predictable AES encryption key to encrypt user configuration files allowing attackers with local access to decrypt sensitive application data stored in %APPDATA%. A different vulnerability than CVE-2025-56801. NOTE: the Supplier's position is that material is not hardcoded and is instead randomly generated on each installation of the application.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive configuration data related to Reolink security camera systems if an attacker gains local access to affected machines. This could facilitate further attacks such as network reconnaissance, credential theft, or manipulation of security camera settings. Organizations relying on Reolink for physical security may face increased risk of surveillance circumvention or privacy breaches. The impact is particularly relevant for sectors with high security requirements such as government, critical infrastructure, and enterprises using Reolink devices for monitoring. While the vulnerability does not allow remote exploitation, insider threats, compromised endpoints, or attackers with physical access could leverage this weakness. The lack of patches and the supplier's denial may delay remediation, prolonging exposure. Confidentiality loss could undermine trust in security systems and complicate compliance with data protection regulations like GDPR if personal data is exposed.

CWE-321Use of Hard-coded Cryptographic Key (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a hard-coded, unchangeable cryptographic key.
Architecture and Design
Prevention schemes mirror that of hard-coded password storage.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
HSTS (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (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-321

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats