CVE-2025-62645VulnerabilityPublished 17 Oct 2025Updated 29 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-62645: Restaurant Brands International assistant platform · Incorrect Privilege Assignment

Affects Restaurant Brands International assistant platformSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.9 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.9Critical

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 53% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; 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 impacted component (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).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 Oct 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
Restaurant Brands International assistant platform	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-62645 effectively, organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Immediately restrict access to the createToken GraphQL mutation to only the most trusted and necessary administrative users, employing role-based access controls (RBAC) with the principle of least privilege. 2) Conduct a thorough audit of all token creation and privilege assignment mechanisms within the assistant platform to identify and remediate improper privilege escalations. 3) Implement additional authorization checks within the GraphQL API layer to validate that token creation requests align with the requesting user’s privileges. 4) Monitor logs and set up alerts for unusual token creation activities, especially those resulting in administrative tokens, to detect potential exploitation attempts early. 5) If available, apply vendor patches promptly once released; in the absence of patches, consider deploying Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to block suspicious GraphQL mutation patterns. 6) Enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all users accessing the assistant platform to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 7) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on API security to uncover similar privilege escalation issues. 8) Educate internal teams about the risks associated with privilege escalation vulnerabilities and the importance of secure API design and usage.

Description

The Restaurant Brands International (RBI) assistant platform through 2025-09-06 allows a remote authenticated attacker to obtain a token with administrative privileges for the entire platform via the createToken GraphQL mutation.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing the RBI assistant platform, this vulnerability poses a severe risk. Attackers exploiting this flaw can gain administrative access, leading to full control over the platform’s functionalities. This can result in unauthorized data access, manipulation of operational workflows, disruption of restaurant services, and potential exposure of customer and employee data. The compromise could also facilitate further attacks within the corporate network, including lateral movement and persistence. Given RBI’s significant market presence in Europe, especially in countries with a high density of their restaurant brands, the operational and reputational impact could be substantial. Additionally, regulatory implications under GDPR could arise if personal data is exposed or mishandled due to this vulnerability. The critical severity and ease of exploitation mean that even moderately skilled attackers with valid credentials could cause major disruptions. The lack of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the risk of future exploitation remains high.

CWE-266Incorrect Privilege Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
A product incorrectly assigns a privilege to a particular actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Environment Hardening
Run your code using the lowest privileges that are required to accomplish the necessary tasks. If possible, create isolated accounts with limited privileges that are only used for a single task. That way, a successful attack will not immediately give the attacker access to the rest of the software or its environment.
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)
Secure Design Principles (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)
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 Oct 2025, 15:37 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-266

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats