CVE-2025-58426VulnerabilityPublished 16 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-58426: NEOJAPAN desknet's NEO · Use of hard-coded cryptographic key

Affects NEOJAPAN desknet's NEOSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% 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:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
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 16 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
NEOJAPAN Inc. desknet's NEO	Affected >=4.0 <=9.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should first restrict network access to desknet's NEO systems to trusted users and networks only, minimizing exposure. Implement strict privilege management to ensure that only authorized personnel can create or deploy AppSuite applications. Monitor and audit all AppSuite application creation and deployment activities for anomalies or unauthorized attempts. Since no official patches are linked yet, organizations should engage with NEOJAPAN Inc. for updates and apply vendor patches promptly once available. Consider deploying application whitelisting or integrity verification mechanisms to detect unauthorized AppSuite applications. Additionally, conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on the desknet's NEO environment to identify potential exploitation attempts. Educate users and administrators about the risks of this vulnerability and enforce strong internal controls around application development and deployment processes within the platform.

Description

desknet's NEO V4.0R1.0 to V9.0R2.0 contains a hard-coded cryptographic key, which allows an attacker to create malicious AppSuite applications.

Impact

For European organizations using desknet's NEO, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the integrity of their collaboration and workflow systems. Malicious AppSuite applications could be used to manipulate data, alter workflows, or introduce backdoors, potentially leading to unauthorized actions within the corporate environment. While confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, the integrity compromise can facilitate further attacks or data manipulation. Organizations in sectors relying heavily on desknet's NEO for internal communication and project management—such as manufacturing, technology, and multinational corporations with Japanese ties—are particularly vulnerable. The risk is heightened in environments where privilege separation is weak or where network access controls are insufficient. Additionally, the presence of a hard-coded key may allow attackers to bypass standard application validation mechanisms, undermining trust in the platform's security model. This could lead to reputational damage and operational disruptions if exploited.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Oct 2025, 10:28 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats