CVE-2025-59696VulnerabilityPublished 2 Dec 2025Updated 26 Aug 2026

CVE-2025-59696: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.2 Low · fixed in 13.6.12 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.2Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 13.6.12

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

Attack Vector: Physical
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: 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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 2 Dec 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

AI-suggested

1. Enforce strict physical security controls around Entrust nShield HSM devices, including locked server rooms, surveillance, and access logging to prevent unauthorized physical proximity. 2. Implement tamper detection monitoring and alerting to quickly identify suspicious events or missing logs. 3. Regularly audit tamper event logs and correlate with physical access records to detect anomalies. 4. 5. Consider deploying additional tamper-evident seals or external monitoring devices to complement the HSM’s internal tamper detection. 6. Limit administrative privileges on the chassis management board to trusted personnel only. 7. Review and update incident response plans to include scenarios involving tamper log manipulation. 8. For high-security environments, consider redundant or layered HSM deployments to reduce single points of failure.

Description

Entrust nShield Connect XC, nShield 5c, and nShield HSMi through 13.6.11, or 13.7 (patched in 13.6.12 (LTS) and 13.9.0 (STS)), allow a physically proximate attacker to modify or erase tamper events via the Chassis management board.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in finance, government, and critical infrastructure sectors that rely on Entrust nShield HSMs for key management and cryptographic operations, this vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity of tamper detection and forensic logging. An attacker with physical access could erase or alter tamper logs to hide unauthorized physical access, potentially delaying detection of security breaches or insider threats. While the vulnerability does not directly expose cryptographic keys or disrupt availability, the loss of reliable tamper evidence weakens trust in the HSM’s security posture and could facilitate more advanced attacks if combined with other vulnerabilities or insider actions. This is particularly concerning for compliance-driven environments subject to strict audit and security requirements. The limited severity and physical access requirement reduce the overall risk, but organizations with less controlled physical environments or shared facilities may be more vulnerable.

CWE-1263Improper Physical Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product is designed with access restricted to certain information, but it does not sufficiently protect against an unauthorized actor with physical access to these areas.
Architecture and Design
Specific protection requirements depend strongly on contextual factors including the level of acceptable risk associated with compromise to the product's protection mechanism. Designers could incorporate anti-tampering measures that protect against or detect when the product has been tampered with.
Testing
The testing phase of the lifecycle should establish a method for determining whether the protection mechanism is sufficient to prevent unauthorized access.
Manufacturing
Ensure that all protection mechanisms are fully activated at the time of manufacturing and distribution.
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
Physically Hacking Hardware (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 9 Dec 2025, 16:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1263

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats