VulnerabilityPublished 6 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-59447: YoSmart YoLink Smart Hub · Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere

Affects YoSmart YoLink Smart HubSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.2 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.2Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: 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 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
YoSmart YoLink Smart Hub	Affected =0382	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Physically secure all YoSmart YoLink Smart Hub devices to prevent unauthorized access, including locked enclosures and restricted access areas.
If possible, disable or restrict access to the UART debug interface through device configuration or hardware modifications.
Monitor physical access logs and implement surveillance in areas where devices are deployed.
Change network credentials regularly and avoid using default or easily guessable credentials to limit the impact of credential exposure.
Segment networks to restrict access from IoT devices to critical systems, minimizing lateral movement opportunities.
Engage with the vendor for firmware updates or patches addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly once available.
Conduct regular security audits and penetration tests focusing on physical security and IoT device vulnerabilities.
Educate staff about the risks of physical tampering and enforce strict access control policies.

Description

The YoSmart YoLink Smart Hub device 0382 exposes a UART debug interface. An attacker with direct physical access can leverage this interface to read a boot log, which includes network access credentials.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is the potential compromise of network access credentials, which could lead to unauthorized network access and lateral movement within internal networks. This is particularly concerning for organizations deploying YoSmart YoLink Smart Hubs in sensitive or critical infrastructure environments such as smart buildings, industrial IoT setups, or corporate networks. The requirement for physical access limits the risk to scenarios where attackers can gain proximity to the device, such as insider threats, theft, or unauthorized physical entry. Confidentiality is compromised, but since the vulnerability does not affect device integrity or availability, the direct operational impact is limited. However, the exposure of network credentials can facilitate further attacks, including data exfiltration or network disruption. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop tools to exploit this interface. Organizations with poor physical security controls are at higher risk.

CWE-497Exposure of Sensitive System Information to an Unauthorized Control Sphere (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly prevent sensitive system-level information from being accessed by unauthorized actors who do not have the same level of access to the underlying system as the product does.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Production applications should never use methods that generate internal details such as stack traces and error messages unless that information is directly committed to a log that is not viewable by the end user.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V14.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Web Application Fingerprinting (opens in a new tab)
System Location Discovery (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, 20:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-497

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats