CVE-2025-62647VulnerabilityPublished 17 Oct 2025Updated 29 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-62647: Restaurant Brands International assistant platform · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Restaurant Brands International assistant platformSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.0 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% 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:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 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 2026-10-25.

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-2025-62647, RBI should implement strict authorization checks ensuring JWTs are only issued for store paths the requesting user is explicitly authorized to access. This includes validating user privileges against the requested store identifier before token issuance. The API generating signed AWS upload URLs must enforce access control policies that verify the JWT's scope and permissions correspond to the target resource path. Employing fine-grained role-based access control (RBAC) and continuous monitoring of API usage patterns can help detect and prevent abuse. Additionally, implementing logging and alerting on anomalous upload URL requests or uploads can provide early warning of exploitation attempts. Organizations using the assistant platform should apply any forthcoming patches promptly and conduct security reviews of their integration points. Network segmentation and limiting access to the assistant platform APIs to trusted internal systems can reduce exposure. Finally, regular security training for developers and administrators on secure token handling and authorization best practices is recommended.

Description

The Restaurant Brands International (RBI) assistant platform through 2025-09-06 provides the functionality of returning a JWT that can be used to call an API to return a signed AWS upload URL, for any store's path.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly those operating RBI franchises or integrating with the RBI assistant platform, this vulnerability could enable unauthorized modification of store-specific data or content hosted on AWS. This may lead to data integrity issues, such as tampering with promotional materials, menu information, or operational data, potentially causing reputational damage or operational disruptions. While confidentiality and availability are not directly impacted, integrity violations can undermine trust in digital assets and may facilitate further attacks if malicious content is uploaded. Given the network-based attack vector and low complexity, attackers with some level of access could exploit this vulnerability remotely. The impact is heightened in Europe due to the presence of RBI brands and the regulatory environment emphasizing data integrity and security. Failure to address this vulnerability could also lead to compliance risks under regulations like GDPR if manipulated data affects customer information or service delivery.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (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-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats