CVE-2025-5828VulnerabilityPublished 25 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-5828: Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial · Classic Buffer Overflow

Affects Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox CommercialSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Physical
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: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
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 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 2026-10-26.

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

Affected software

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

AI-suggested

1. Implement strict physical security controls around EV charging stations to prevent unauthorized physical access, including surveillance, access restrictions, and tamper-evident seals. 2. Monitor USB ports on chargers for unauthorized connections using hardware or software-based port control solutions. 3. Network segmentation should isolate EV chargers from critical IT and OT systems to limit lateral movement in case of compromise. 4. Employ anomaly detection systems to identify unusual device behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. 5. Coordinate with Autel for timely firmware updates or patches; if unavailable, consider temporary operational measures such as disabling USB interfaces where feasible. 6. Conduct regular security audits and penetration tests focusing on physical attack vectors and device firmware vulnerabilities. 7. Educate personnel responsible for charger maintenance on recognizing signs of tampering and the importance of reporting suspicious activity promptly. 8. Explore deployment of endpoint protection solutions tailored for embedded devices if supported by the charger platform.

Description

Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial wLength Buffer Overflow Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows physically present attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial EV chargers. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the handling of USB frame packets. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of the length of user-supplied data prior to copying it to a fixed-length buffer. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the device. Was ZDI-CAN-26328.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, particularly for entities operating EV charging infrastructure using the affected Autel MaxiCharger AC Wallbox Commercial units. Successful exploitation could allow attackers to disrupt charging services, manipulate billing data, or use compromised chargers as pivot points to infiltrate broader operational technology (OT) or IT networks. This could affect utilities, commercial parking operators, and public charging networks, potentially causing service outages and financial losses. Additionally, compromised chargers could undermine trust in EV infrastructure security, slowing EV adoption. Given the physical access requirement, the threat is more pronounced in publicly accessible or poorly secured charging stations. The vulnerability also raises safety concerns, as malicious code execution could interfere with the device’s power delivery mechanisms. The medium CVSS score reflects the balance between the high impact of exploitation and the limited attack vector. However, the absence of authentication and user interaction requirements increases risk in environments where physical security is lax.

CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
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.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
MIME Conversion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-25-347/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Jun 2025, 18:43 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats