CVE-2025-59402VulnerabilityPublished 25 Sep 2025Updated 26 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59402: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
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: 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 25 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 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

To mitigate CVE-2025-59402, European organizations should implement strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized access to Flock Safety Bravo Edge devices. This includes securing device enclosures, deploying tamper-evident seals, and restricting access to authorized personnel only. Network segmentation and monitoring should be used to detect anomalous device behavior that might indicate firmware tampering. Organizations should engage with the vendor to obtain firmware updates or patches that disable or authenticate access to the default Firehose loader in EDL/QDL mode. Additionally, maintain an inventory of deployed devices and conduct regular physical inspections. Incident response plans should include procedures for detecting and responding to firmware compromise. Finally, consider alternative devices with stronger firmware security if the risk cannot be adequately mitigated.

Description

Flock Safety Bravo Edge AI Compute Device BRAVO_00.00_local_20241017 accepts the default Thundercomm TurboX 6490 Firehose loader in EDL/QDL mode. This enables attackers with physical access to flash arbitrary firmware, dump partitions, and bypass bootloader and OS security controls.

Impact

For European organizations deploying Flock Safety Bravo Edge AI Compute Devices, this vulnerability poses a significant risk if devices are physically accessible to attackers. The ability to flash arbitrary firmware and bypass bootloader security controls can lead to unauthorized persistent access, data exfiltration, and manipulation of device functions. Given that these devices are likely used for AI-driven safety and surveillance applications, compromise could undermine security monitoring, lead to false data reporting, or disable safety features. This could have operational impacts, especially in critical infrastructure, law enforcement, or public safety contexts. The physical access requirement limits remote exploitation risk but does not eliminate insider threats or attacks in environments where devices are deployed in publicly accessible or insufficiently secured locations. The medium severity rating suggests that while the threat is serious, it is not trivially exploitable remotely, but the consequences of exploitation on device integrity are substantial.

CWE-616Incomplete Identification of Uploaded File Variables (PHP) (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The PHP application uses an old method for processing uploaded files by referencing the four global variables that are set for each file (e.g. $varname, $varname_size, $varname_name, $varname_type). These variables could be overwritten by attackers, causing the application to process unauthorized files.
Architecture and Design
Use PHP 4 or later.
Architecture and Design
If you must support older PHP versions, write your own version of is_uploaded_file() and run it against $HTTP_POST_FILES['userfile']))
Implementation
For later PHP versions, reference uploaded files using the $HTTP_POST_FILES or $_FILES variables, and use is_uploaded_file() or move_uploaded_file() to ensure that you are dealing with an uploaded file.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (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 3 Oct 2025, 00:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-616

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats