VulnerabilityPublished 26 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-58385: DOXENSE WATCHDOC · Use of Hard-coded Credentials

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High · fixed in 6.1.0.5094 : patch DOXENSE WATCHDOC soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Affects: DOXENSE WATCHDOC before 6.1.0.5094
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.1.0.5094

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 26 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

European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Immediately inventory and identify all instances of DOXENSE WATCHDOC in their environment, focusing on versions prior to 6.1.0.5094. 2) Restrict local access to systems running vulnerable versions to trusted personnel only, employing strict access controls and monitoring. 3) Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions to detect unusual local access patterns or attempts to extract credential-related data. 4) Until patches are available, consider isolating affected systems or removing Active Directory integration with WATCHDOC if feasible. 5) Conduct regular audits of account recovery mechanisms and verify that no hard-coded or predictable credentials are in use. 6) Engage with DOXENSE support or vendors for early patch releases or workarounds. 7) Enhance user authentication policies by implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) to reduce the impact of compromised PUK codes. 8) Train IT staff to recognize and respond to potential exploitation attempts involving local credential disclosure. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on access restrictions, monitoring, and compensating controls specific to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

In DOXENSE WATCHDOC before 6.1.0.5094, private user puk codes can be disclosed for Active Directory registered users (there is hard-coded and predictable data).

Impact

For European organizations, especially those relying on DOXENSE WATCHDOC integrated with Active Directory for user authentication and account recovery, this vulnerability poses a significant confidentiality risk. Disclosure of private PUK codes could allow attackers to bypass account recovery protections, leading to unauthorized access to user accounts and potentially sensitive corporate resources. This is particularly critical in sectors with stringent data protection requirements such as finance, healthcare, and government institutions within Europe. The vulnerability could facilitate lateral movement within networks if attackers gain local access to affected systems, undermining trust in identity management processes. Given the high confidentiality impact and the scope change, organizations may face regulatory repercussions under GDPR if personal data is compromised. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently limits immediate widespread impact, but the vulnerability's characteristics suggest that targeted attacks against high-value European entities could emerge.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Sep 2025, 15:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-798

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats