CVE-2025-62514VulnerabilityPublished 29 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-62514: Scille parsec-cloud · Weak Cryptography

Affects Scille parsec-cloudSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.3 High : upgrade to 3.6.0 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.3High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.6.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

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: 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: 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: 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 29 Jan 2026
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

Upgrade parsec-cloud and github/scille/parsec-cloud to 3.6.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Scilleparsec-cloud	Affected >=3.0.0-alpha <3.6.0	Fixed in 3.6.0
crates.iogithub/scille/parsec-cloud`pkg:cargo/github/scille/parsec-cloud`Other threats	Affected <3.6.0	Fixed in 3.6.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade all Parsec web clients to version 3.6.0 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Organizations should audit their deployment to identify any use of the vulnerable RustCrypto backend and confirm that no legacy versions remain in use. Network defenses should be enhanced to detect and prevent MITM attacks, including the use of strong TLS configurations, certificate pinning, and network segmentation. Employing endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to monitor unusual cryptographic operations or network anomalies can help identify exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should review their cryptographic libraries and ensure they use well-vetted backends like libsodium where possible. User training to recognize suspicious network behavior and enforcing secure VPN or zero-trust network access can reduce exposure. Finally, implementing multi-factor authentication and robust logging for file sharing activities will aid in early detection and response to potential compromises.

Description

Parsec is a cloud-based application for cryptographically secure file sharing. In versions on the 3.x branch prior to 3.6.0, `libparsec_crypto`, a component of the Parsec application, does not check for weak order point of Curve25519 when compiled with its RustCrypto backend. In practice this means an attacker in a man-in-the-middle position would be able to provide weak order points to both parties in the Diffie-Hellman exchange, resulting in a high probability to for both parties to obtain the same shared key (hence leading to a successful SAS code exchange, misleading both parties into thinking no MITM has occurred) which is also known by the attacker. Note only Parsec web is impacted (as Parsec desktop uses `libparsec_crypto` with the libsodium backend). Version 3.6.0 of Parsec patches the issue.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability threatens the confidentiality and integrity of sensitive data shared via the Parsec web client. An attacker capable of intercepting network traffic (e.g., on public or compromised networks) can perform a MITM attack to decrypt or manipulate files exchanged, potentially leading to data breaches, intellectual property theft, or regulatory non-compliance under GDPR. The integrity compromise can also facilitate injection of malicious content or unauthorized data modifications. Availability impact is low but secondary effects such as loss of trust or operational disruptions may occur. Sectors with high reliance on secure cloud file sharing, such as finance, healthcare, legal, and government agencies, are particularly vulnerable. The vulnerability's exploitation could undermine secure collaboration and data exchange workflows, increasing the risk of espionage or sabotage. Since Parsec is a niche but growing secure file sharing solution, organizations that have adopted it without upgrading to the fixed version remain exposed. The attack requires network-level access but no user interaction, making it feasible in targeted or opportunistic scenarios, especially in environments with insufficient network segmentation or monitoring.

CWE-327Use of a Broken or Risky Cryptographic Algorithm (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a broken or risky cryptographic algorithm or protocol.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the design allows one cryptographic algorithm to be replaced with another in the next generation or version. Where possible, use wrappers to make the interfaces uniform. This will make it easier to upgrade to stronger algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Carefully manage and protect cryptographic keys (see CWE-320). If the keys can be guessed or stolen, then the strength of the cryptography itself is irrelevant.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (opens in a new tab)
Cryptanalysis of Cellular Encryption (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1240Use of a Cryptographic Primitive with a Risky Implementation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A04:2025: Cryptographic Failures (opens in a new tab)
To fulfill the need for a cryptographic primitive, the product implements a cryptographic algorithm using a non-standard, unproven, or disallowed/non-compliant cryptographic implementation.
Requirements
Require compliance with the strongest-available recommendations from trusted parties, and require that compliance must be kept up-to-date, since recommendations evolve over time. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that the architecture/design uses the strongest-available primitives and algorithms from trusted parties. For example, US government systems require FIPS 140-3 certification, which supersedes FIPS 140-2.
Architecture and Design
Do not develop custom or private cryptographic algorithms. They will likely be exposed to attacks that are well-understood by cryptographers. As with all cryptographic mechanisms, the source code should be available for analysis.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Cryptographic Storage (opens in a new tab)
Key Management (opens in a new tab)
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Password Storage (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.7 (opens in a new tab)
V2.9.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cryptanalysis (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Jan 2026, 16:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-327, CWE-1240

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats