CVE-2025-58590VulnerabilityPublished 6 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-58590: SICK Baggage Analytics · Path Traversal

Affects SICK Baggage AnalyticsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
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: 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 6 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 2026-10-26.

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
SICK AG Baggage Analytics	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on all pathname inputs to prevent traversal sequences such as '../'. 2. Enforce robust access control mechanisms to restrict file system access only to authorized users and processes. 3. Monitor file access logs for unusual or repeated attempts to access unauthorized directories or files, indicating brute force path traversal attempts. 4. Segment the network to isolate baggage analytics systems from broader corporate or public networks, limiting exposure. 5. Apply principle of least privilege to service accounts and users interacting with the Baggage Analytics system. 6. Engage with SICK AG for timely patch releases and apply updates as soon as they become available. 7. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on file system access controls. 8. Educate security teams on recognizing indicators of path traversal exploitation attempts. 9. Consider deploying web application firewalls or intrusion detection systems with rules to detect path traversal patterns. 10. Prepare incident response plans specific to data leakage scenarios involving baggage handling systems.

Description

It's possible to brute force folders and files, what can be used by an attacker to steal sensitve information.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly those operating airports and transportation hubs, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the confidentiality of sensitive operational and passenger data. Exposure of such information could lead to privacy violations under GDPR, reputational damage, and potential regulatory penalties. The ability to access restricted files remotely with low privileges increases the attack surface, especially if network segmentation or access controls are insufficient. Disclosed information could be leveraged for further attacks, including social engineering or targeted intrusions. The lack of integrity or availability impact limits immediate operational disruption but does not diminish the threat to data confidentiality. Organizations relying on SICK AG Baggage Analytics must consider the potential for data breaches and the associated legal and financial consequences within the European regulatory environment.

Summary

CVE-2025-58590 is a CWE-22 path traversal vulnerability identified in SICK AG's Baggage Analytics software, which is used primarily in airport baggage handling and analytics systems. The vulnerability arises from improper limitation of pathname inputs, allowing an attacker to brute force directory and file paths beyond the intended restricted directories. This flaw enables unauthorized reading of sensitive files, potentially exposing confidential information such as passenger data, operational logs, or system configurations. The vulnerability requires network access and low privileges (PR:L), but does not require user interaction (UI:N), making it feasible for remote exploitation. The CVSS 3.1 base score of 6.5 reflects a medium severity, driven by high confidentiality impact, no integrity or availability impact, low attack complexity, and no user interaction. No patches or known exploits are currently available, indicating a window of exposure. The vulnerability's exploitation could compromise data confidentiality within critical airport infrastructure, undermining operational security and privacy compliance. The brute force nature of the attack suggests that automated tools could be used to enumerate files, increasing the risk of data leakage over time.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Oct 2025, 07:18 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats