VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-5822: Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox CommercialSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N

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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Autel Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial	Affected =1.36.00	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Immediate implementation of network segmentation to isolate EV charging infrastructure from critical enterprise and operational technology networks, limiting attacker lateral movement.
Enforce strict access controls and multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all technician and administrative interfaces to reduce the risk of low-privileged token compromise.
Monitor API access logs for anomalous behavior indicative of privilege escalation attempts, such as unusual API calls or access patterns inconsistent with technician roles.
Deploy intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics tailored to detect exploitation attempts targeting the Autel Technician API.
Coordinate with Autel for timely patching once updates become available; in the interim, consider disabling or restricting remote access to the Technician API where feasible.
Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focused on EV charging infrastructure to identify and remediate similar authorization weaknesses.
Implement strict credential management policies, including regular rotation and revocation of technician tokens, to minimize the window of opportunity for attackers.
Engage in threat intelligence sharing with industry groups and national cybersecurity centers to stay informed about emerging exploits and mitigation strategies specific to EV infrastructure.

Description

Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial Technician API Incorrect Authorization Privilege Escalation Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to escalate privileges on affected installations of Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial charging stations. An attacker must first obtain a low-privileged authorization token in order to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the implementation of the Autel Technician API. The issue results from incorrect authorization. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges to resources normally protected from the user. Was ZDI-CAN-26325.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses significant risks, especially for entities operating or managing EV charging infrastructure such as utility companies, commercial parking operators, and municipalities investing in green transportation. Unauthorized privilege escalation could allow attackers to access sensitive operational data, manipulate charging sessions, or disrupt billing and user authentication processes. This could lead to financial losses, reputational damage, and potential regulatory penalties under GDPR if personal data is exposed. Additionally, compromised charging stations could be leveraged as entry points into broader industrial or enterprise networks, increasing the risk of lateral movement and further compromise. The impact is heightened in Europe due to the continent's aggressive push towards electric mobility and the widespread deployment of EV charging infrastructure. Disruption or manipulation of these systems could undermine trust in EV services and slow adoption rates. Furthermore, attackers could exploit this vulnerability to interfere with energy management systems, potentially affecting grid stability if large numbers of chargers are compromised.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-25-340/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Jun 2025, 18:42 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats