CVE-2025-6072VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-6072: ABB RMC-100 · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Affects ABB RMC-100Source CVE Database V5

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-6074

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: Present
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: Present: The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: a race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability (the successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker, or the attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful); the attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Jul 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 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
ABB RMC-100	Affected =2105457-043	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediately disable the REST interface on ABB RMC-100 and RMC-100 LITE devices if it is not strictly necessary, as this interface is a prerequisite for exploitation. 2. Restrict network access to the control network by implementing strict network segmentation and firewall rules, ensuring that only authorized management stations can communicate with RMC-100 devices. 3. Monitor network traffic for anomalous JSON configuration requests or unusual activity targeting the 'date of expiration' field. 4. Apply strict access controls and authentication mechanisms on the control network to prevent unauthorized access, even though the vulnerability itself does not require privileges. 5. Coordinate with ABB for timely release and deployment of official patches or firmware updates addressing CVE-2025-6072. 6. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on industrial control systems to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities proactively. 7. Implement intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) tailored for industrial protocols and REST API traffic to detect exploitation attempts.

Description

Stack-based Buffer Overflow vulnerability in ABB RMC-100, ABB RMC-100 LITE. When the REST interface is enabled by the user, and an attacker gains access to the control network, and CVE-2025-6074 is exploited, the attacker can use the JSON configuration to overflow the date of expiration field.This issue affects RMC-100: from 2105457-043 through 2105457-045; RMC-100 LITE: from 2106229-015 through 2106229-016.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in critical infrastructure sectors such as energy, manufacturing, and utilities where ABB RMC-100 devices are commonly deployed for remote monitoring and control, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized control over industrial processes, disruption of operations, or even physical damage if safety systems are compromised. The high impact on availability could result in operational downtime, financial losses, and safety hazards. Furthermore, the ability to execute arbitrary code could allow attackers to establish persistent footholds within industrial control networks, facilitating further attacks or espionage. Given the interconnected nature of industrial systems in Europe and the increasing adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies, the ripple effects of such an exploit could extend beyond a single organization, potentially affecting supply chains and critical services.

CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

search.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=9AKK108471A3623&LanguageCode=en&DocumentPartId=PDF&Action=Launch (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Jul 2025, 17:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-121

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats