VulnerabilityPublished 22 Sep 2025Updated 23 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-57602: Use of Hard-coded Credentials

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% 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:H/A:H

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

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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 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, European organizations using the AiKaan IoT management platform should immediately: 1) Audit and replace any hardcoded SSH keys with unique, securely generated keys per deployment, eliminating shared credentials. 2) Harden the proxyuser account by enforcing strong authentication mechanisms, disabling or restricting its use where possible, and applying the principle of least privilege. 3) Implement network segmentation to isolate IoT management infrastructure from critical internal networks, limiting the blast radius of potential compromises. 4) Monitor SSH access logs and cloud controller activity for anomalous authentication attempts or unusual shell access patterns. 5) Engage with AiKaan or their vendors to obtain patches or updated versions that address this vulnerability as soon as they become available. 6) Employ multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all administrative access to the IoT management platform. 7) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on IoT management components to detect similar weaknesses. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on credential management, account hardening, and network architecture specific to the AiKaan platform environment.

Description

Insufficient hardening of the proxyuser account in the AiKaan IoT management platform, combined with the use of a shared, hardcoded SSH private key, allows remote attackers to authenticate to the cloud controller, gain interactive shell access, and pivot into other connected IoT devices. This can lead to remote code execution, information disclosure, and privilege escalation across customer environments.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability is substantial. Many enterprises and critical infrastructure operators increasingly rely on IoT devices for automation, monitoring, and operational efficiency. Compromise of the AiKaan cloud controller could lead to unauthorized control over a broad range of connected devices, resulting in operational disruptions, data breaches, and potential sabotage. The ability to execute remote code and escalate privileges means attackers could implant persistent malware, exfiltrate sensitive data, or disrupt services. This is particularly concerning for sectors such as manufacturing, energy, transportation, and smart city deployments, where IoT devices are integral to daily operations. Additionally, the compromise of IoT devices can serve as a foothold for further attacks within corporate networks, increasing the risk of lateral movement and more extensive breaches. The vulnerability also raises compliance and regulatory concerns under frameworks like GDPR, NIS Directive, and sector-specific cybersecurity regulations, as data confidentiality and service availability could be severely impacted.

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/Shubhangborkar/aikaan-vulnerabilities/blob/main/cve2-proxyuser-shell.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Sep 2025, 00:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-798

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats