VulnerabilityPublished 15 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59399: EVerest libocpp · Improper Cleanup on Thrown Exception

Affects EVerest libocppSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.1 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.1Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
EVerest libocpp	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should: 1) Identify all instances of libocpp in their EV charging infrastructure and verify the version in use. 2) Upgrade to libocpp version 0.28.0 or later once available, as this version addresses the improper cleanup issue. 3) In the absence of an immediate patch, implement network segmentation to restrict access to the adjacent network where libocpp operates, minimizing exposure to potential attackers. 4) Monitor system logs for unexpected crashes or exceptions related to error message generation in EVerest components. 5) Engage with EVerest project maintainers or vendors for timely updates and patches. 6) Consider implementing application-level watchdog mechanisms to automatically restart services in case of crashes to maintain availability. 7) Conduct regular security assessments of EV charging infrastructure software to detect and remediate similar exception handling issues proactively.

Description

libocpp before 0.28.0 allows a denial of service (EVerest crash) because a secondary exception is thrown during error message generation.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability is primarily on the availability of systems utilizing the EVerest libocpp library, which is likely deployed in electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. Given the increasing adoption of EVs and the EU's strong push for green energy and EV infrastructure, any disruption in charging station software could lead to service outages, affecting EV users and potentially causing reputational damage to service providers. However, since the vulnerability only causes a low-severity denial of service without compromising data confidentiality or integrity, the direct impact on sensitive information or system control is minimal. The requirement for an adjacent network attack vector and high attack complexity further reduces the likelihood of widespread exploitation. Nonetheless, critical infrastructure operators and service providers in the EV charging ecosystem should be aware of potential service disruptions and plan accordingly.

CWE-460Improper Cleanup on Thrown Exception (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not clean up its state or incorrectly cleans up its state when an exception is thrown, leading to unexpected state or control flow.
Implementation
If one breaks from a loop or function by throwing an exception, make sure that cleanup happens or that you should exit the program. Use throwing exceptions sparsely.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (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 15 Sep 2025, 18:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-460

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats