VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-59803: Foxit PDF Editor · Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 2025.2.1 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2025.2.1, 14.0.1, 13.2.1

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
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: 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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 11 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 immediately upgrade Foxit PDF Editor and Reader to versions 2025.2.1, 14.0.1, or 13.2.1 to remediate this vulnerability. Beyond patching, organizations should implement strict PDF document handling policies that include scanning incoming and outgoing PDFs for embedded scripts or suspicious triggers using specialized PDF security tools. Training users to recognize suspicious PDF behaviors and enforcing signing workflows that include manual or automated verification of document integrity post-signature can reduce risk. Consider restricting the use of JavaScript in PDFs or disabling script execution in PDF readers where feasible. Organizations should also audit existing signed documents for signs of post-signature modifications and maintain detailed logs of signing events. For high-risk environments, adopting alternative secure signing solutions that cryptographically lock the entire document state at signing time can provide stronger guarantees. Regularly monitoring threat intelligence feeds for emerging exploits related to this vulnerability is advised.

Description

Foxit PDF Editor and Reader before 2025.2.1 allow signature spoofing via triggers. An attacker can embed triggers (e.g., JavaScript) in a PDF document that execute during the signing process. When a signer reviews the document, the content appears normal. However, once the signature is applied, the triggers modify content on other pages or optional content layers without explicit warning. This can cause the signed PDF to differ from what the signer saw, undermining the trustworthiness of the digital signature. The fixed versions are 2025.2.1, 14.0.1, and 13.2.1.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-59803 is substantial, particularly in sectors relying heavily on digitally signed PDF documents such as legal, financial, government, and healthcare. The vulnerability undermines the integrity and non-repudiation guarantees of digital signatures, potentially allowing attackers to alter signed documents after approval without detection. This can lead to fraudulent contracts, unauthorized changes to official records, and legal disputes. The trustworthiness of electronic document workflows is compromised, which may also affect compliance with EU regulations like eIDAS that govern electronic signatures and trust services. Organizations may face reputational damage, financial losses, and regulatory penalties if exploited. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the ease of embedding JavaScript in PDFs and the widespread use of Foxit products increase the risk of future exploitation. The vulnerability affects confidentiality less directly but severely impacts integrity and availability of trustworthy document workflows.

CWE-347Improper Verification of Cryptographic Signature (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not verify, or incorrectly verifies, the cryptographic signature for data.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Cross-Site Request Forgery Prevention (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V13.2.6 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

foxit.com/support/security-bulletins.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Dec 2025, 15:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-347

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats