VulnerabilityPublished 2 Dec 2025Updated 26 Aug 2026

CVE-2025-59701: Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.1 Medium · fixed in 13.6.12 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 9% 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:L

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement strict physical security controls around Entrust nShield HSM devices, including access restrictions, surveillance, and tamper-evident measures. Regular audits and monitoring of device logs and configurations can help detect unauthorized access or privilege escalations. Segregation of duties and strong authentication mechanisms should be enforced to minimize the risk of privilege abuse. Organizations should engage with Entrust to obtain firmware updates or patches addressing this vulnerability once available. Additionally, consider encrypting data at rest on the appliance if supported by future firmware or deploying complementary security controls such as hardware enclosures with encryption capabilities. Incident response plans should include procedures for suspected physical compromise of HSMs. Finally, ensure that backup and key recovery procedures are robust to mitigate potential data loss or corruption.

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 (with elevated privileges) to read and modify the Appliance SSD contents (because they are unencrypted).

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the security of cryptographic keys and sensitive data managed by Entrust nShield HSMs. Compromise of these devices can lead to unauthorized decryption, signing, or tampering with secure communications and transactions. Sectors such as finance, government, telecommunications, and critical infrastructure that rely on HSMs for key management and cryptographic assurance are particularly vulnerable. The requirement for physical access and elevated privileges limits the attack surface but raises concerns about insider threats or inadequate physical security controls. If exploited, attackers could undermine trust in digital signatures, encryption, and secure authentication mechanisms, potentially leading to data breaches, fraud, or disruption of services. The medium severity rating reflects the balance between the impactful consequences and the exploitation constraints.

CWE-312Cleartext Storage of Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product stores sensitive information in cleartext within a resource that might be accessible to another control sphere.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to encrypt the data at rest.
Implementation · System Configuration · Operation
In some systems/environments such as cloud, the use of "double encryption" (at both the software and hardware layer) might be required, and the developer might be solely responsible for both layers, instead of shared responsibility with the administrator of the broader system/environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.6 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data (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-312

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats