VulnerabilityPublished 2 Dec 2025Updated 26 Aug 2026

CVE-2025-59703: Improper Access Control

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical · fixed in 13.6.12 : patch affected systems as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 13.6.12

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 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

Mitigation should focus on strengthening physical security controls around Entrust nShield HSM deployments. Organizations must enforce strict access controls to data centers and server rooms, including multi-factor authentication for physical entry, surveillance, and security personnel presence. Regular inspection of HSM devices for tamper labels and physical integrity is critical to detect any unauthorized access attempts. Entrust should be engaged to provide firmware updates or hardware revisions that enhance tamper detection and resistance against F14-style attacks. Where possible, deploying HSMs in secure, locked cabinets or safes with additional tamper sensors can add layers of defense. Organizations should implement strict operational procedures for handling and maintaining HSMs, including logging and auditing physical access events. Additionally, consider using complementary cryptographic protections such as key splitting or multi-party computation to reduce risk from single-device compromise. Incident response plans must include procedures for suspected physical tampering and key compromise scenarios. Finally, organizations should evaluate alternative HSM solutions with stronger physical tamper protections if remediation is delayed.

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 access the internal components of the appliance, without leaving tamper evidence. To exploit this, the attacker needs to remove the tamper label and all fixing screws from the device without damaging it. This is called an F14 attack.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-59703 is substantial, particularly for those relying on Entrust nShield HSMs to secure sensitive cryptographic keys and operations. Compromise of these devices can lead to unauthorized key extraction, enabling attackers to decrypt confidential communications, forge digital signatures, or bypass authentication mechanisms. This threatens confidentiality and integrity of critical data and transactions across sectors such as banking, government services, telecommunications, and critical infrastructure. The absence of tamper evidence means attacks could go undetected, prolonging exposure and increasing the risk of widespread compromise. Given the high CVSS score and critical severity, organizations face potential regulatory and compliance repercussions under frameworks like GDPR and NIS Directive if cryptographic protections are breached. The physical nature of the attack requires attackers to have direct access, which may limit exposure to on-premises data centers or facilities with inadequate physical security controls. However, insider threats or sophisticated adversaries could exploit this vulnerability to gain persistent, undetected access to cryptographic assets.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
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)
Authorization (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
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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, 16:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats