VulnerabilityPublished 25 Sep 2025Updated 26 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-59404: Improper Access Control for Volatile Memory Containing Boot Code

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: 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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within 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

1. Immediate mitigation should include isolating affected devices from critical network segments to limit potential attack surfaces. 2. Organizations should monitor network traffic and device logs for unusual activity indicative of unauthorized partition modifications or boot anomalies. 3. Engage with Flock Safety to obtain official guidance, firmware updates, or patches addressing the unlocked bootloader issue; prioritize applying any forthcoming security updates. 4. Where possible, re-lock the bootloader manually following manufacturer instructions or through secure device management tools to restore AVB protections. 5. Implement network-level protections such as firewall rules and segmentation to restrict access to the devices, minimizing exposure to remote attackers. 6. Conduct regular integrity checks of device firmware and system partitions using cryptographic verification tools to detect unauthorized changes. 7. Develop incident response plans specific to edge AI device compromise scenarios, including rapid device quarantine and forensic analysis. 8. For future deployments, enforce procurement policies requiring devices with secure boot mechanisms properly enabled and verified before installation.

Description

Flock Safety Bravo Edge AI Compute Device BRAVO_00.00_local_20241017 ships with its bootloader unlocked. This permits bypass of Android Verified Boot (AVB) and allows direct modification of partitions.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing Flock Safety Bravo Edge AI Compute Devices, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk to operational integrity and security. These devices are likely used in security, surveillance, or AI-driven analytics contexts, where data integrity and trustworthiness of device outputs are critical. An attacker exploiting this vulnerability could implant malicious firmware or modify system partitions to alter device behavior, potentially leading to false data reporting, unauthorized surveillance, or disruption of AI computations. This could undermine security operations, lead to data manipulation, or facilitate further lateral movement within organizational networks. Given the device's role in edge computing, compromised units could serve as footholds for attackers to infiltrate broader IT or OT environments. The absence of required authentication and user interaction increases the likelihood of remote exploitation, raising concerns for organizations with these devices deployed in public or semi-public spaces. Additionally, the inability to verify boot integrity may violate compliance requirements related to device security and data protection under European regulations such as GDPR, especially if personal data is processed or stored.

CWE-1274Improper Access Control for Volatile Memory Containing Boot Code (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product conducts a secure-boot process that transfers bootloader code from Non-Volatile Memory (NVM) into Volatile Memory (VM), but it does not have sufficient access control or other protections for the Volatile Memory.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the design of volatile-memory protections is enough to prevent modification from an adversary or untrusted code.
Testing
Test the volatile-memory protections to ensure they are safe from modification or untrusted code.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Infected Memory (opens in a new tab)
Exploitation of Improperly Configured or Implemented Memory Protections (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, 00:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1274

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats