VulnerabilityPublished 4 Dec 2025Updated 5 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-63363: Improper Access Control

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 4 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 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

1. Monitor network traffic for unusual spikes in deauthentication or disassociation frames using wireless intrusion detection systems (WIDS) or network monitoring tools. 2. Segment networks to isolate vulnerable gateways from general user access and limit exposure to untrusted wireless clients. 3. Implement strong wireless network security policies, including enabling Management Frame Protection (MFP) if supported by other network devices to reduce attack surface. 4. Engage with Waveshare or authorized vendors to obtain firmware updates or patches addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available. 5. Where possible, replace or supplement vulnerable gateways with devices that support robust management frame protection and modern security standards. 6. Conduct regular security assessments of wireless infrastructure to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities. 7. Employ physical security controls to restrict unauthorized access to wireless network areas, reducing the risk of local exploitation. 8. Prepare incident response plans specifically addressing wireless denial-of-service scenarios to minimize operational downtime.

Description

A lack of Management Frame Protection in Waveshare RS232/485 TO WIFI ETH (B) Serial to Ethernet/Wi-Fi Gateway Firmware V3.1.1.0: HW 4.3.2.1: Webpage V7.04T.07.002880.0301 allows attackers to execute de-authentication attacks, allowing crafted deauthentication and disassociation frames to be broadcast without authentication or encryption.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-63363 is the potential for denial-of-service attacks that disrupt wireless connectivity of critical serial-to-Ethernet/Wi-Fi gateways. These devices often serve as bridges between legacy serial equipment and modern network infrastructure, commonly used in industrial automation, manufacturing, and building management systems. Disruptions could halt production lines, degrade operational efficiency, or impair monitoring and control systems. Since the attack does not compromise confidentiality or integrity, the risk is focused on availability, which can still have severe operational and financial consequences. The ease of exploitation without authentication or user interaction increases the threat level, especially in environments with wireless networks accessible to potential attackers. Additionally, the lack of known patches means organizations must rely on network-level mitigations until vendor fixes are released. This vulnerability could also be leveraged as part of a broader attack chain targeting critical infrastructure, amplifying its impact.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
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)
Authorization (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)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-300Channel Accessible by Non-Endpoint (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not adequately verify the identity of actors at both ends of a communication channel, or does not adequately ensure the integrity of the channel, in a way that allows the channel to be accessed or influenced by an actor that is not an endpoint.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Implementation
Always fully authenticate both ends of any communications channel.
Architecture and Design
Adhere to the principle of complete mediation.
Implementation
A certificate binds an identity to a cryptographic key to authenticate a communicating party. Often, the certificate takes the encrypted form of the hash of the identity of the subject, the public key, and information such as time of issue or expiration using the issuer's private key.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.14.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Active Adversary in the Middle Attacks to Bypass Same Origin Policy (opens in a new tab)
Utilizing REST's Trust in the System Resource to Obtain Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
DNS Blocking (opens in a new tab)
IP Address Blocking (opens in a new tab)
WiFi MAC Address Tracking (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Dec 2025, 22:01 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284, CWE-300

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats