VulnerabilityPublished 17 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-65083: Tinexta Infocert GoSign Desktop · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects Tinexta Infocert GoSign DesktopSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.2 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.2Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
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: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: 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 Nov 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
Tinexta Infocert GoSign Desktop	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Avoid configuring GoSign Desktop to use untrusted or arbitrary proxy servers. Ensure that proxy servers are managed and trusted within the enterprise network. 2. Verify and enforce TLS certificate validation settings in GoSign Desktop configurations, ensuring SSL_VERIFY_NONE or equivalent disabling of certificate checks is not set. 3. Implement strict network policies that prevent proxy servers from accepting or forwarding HTTPS connections with invalid or untrusted certificates. 4. Secure user home directories by restricting access permissions to the ~/.gosign directory, preventing untrusted users from placing or executing malicious files. 5. Educate users on the risks of configuring proxy settings and the importance of using trusted network infrastructure. 6. Monitor network traffic for unusual proxy usage or certificate validation bypass attempts. 7. Coordinate with Tinexta Infocert for updates or patches addressing this vulnerability once available. 8. Conduct regular security audits of client configurations and proxy server policies to ensure compliance with best practices.

Description

GoSign Desktop through 2.4.1 disables TLS certificate validation when configured to use a proxy server. This can be problematic if the GoSign Desktop user selects an arbitrary proxy server without consideration of whether outbound HTTPS connections from the proxy server to Internet servers succeed even for untrusted or invalid server certificates. In this scenario (which is outside of the product's design objectives), integrity protection could be bypassed. In typical cases of a proxy server for outbound HTTPS traffic from an enterprise, those connections would not succeed. (Admittedly, the usual expectation is that a client application is configured to trust an enterprise CA and does not set SSL_VERIFY_NONE.) Also, it is of course unsafe to place ~/.gosign in the home directory of an untrusted user and then have other users execute downloaded files.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those using Tinexta Infocert's GoSign Desktop for digital signatures and document authentication, this vulnerability could undermine the integrity of signed documents if exploited. While confidentiality is not directly impacted, the ability to bypass certificate validation can allow attackers to inject or alter data without detection, potentially invalidating trust in digital signatures. This is particularly critical in sectors relying on legally binding electronic signatures such as finance, legal, and government services. The risk is heightened in environments where proxy servers are used for outbound HTTPS traffic and where users might configure proxies without strict validation policies. However, the low CVSS score and high attack complexity suggest that widespread exploitation is unlikely without insider knowledge or control over proxy infrastructure. The vulnerability also highlights the importance of secure user environment management, as improper file permissions could lead to privilege escalation or code execution. Overall, the impact is moderate but could have serious consequences in high-assurance environments.

Summary

CVE-2025-65083 identifies an improper certificate validation vulnerability (CWE-295) in Tinexta Infocert's GoSign Desktop software versions up to 2.4.1. The core issue arises when GoSign Desktop is configured to use a proxy server for outbound HTTPS connections. In this configuration, the software disables TLS certificate validation, meaning it does not verify the authenticity or trustworthiness of server certificates presented through the proxy. This behavior can be exploited if a user configures the application to use an arbitrary or malicious proxy server that accepts or forwards HTTPS connections even with invalid or untrusted certificates. Under such circumstances, an attacker controlling the proxy could intercept or manipulate communications, bypassing integrity protections that TLS normally provides. The vulnerability does not affect confidentiality directly but can allow integrity bypass, potentially enabling tampering with signed data or communications. The attack vector is local (AV:L), requiring the attacker to influence proxy settings or have local access to the client environment. The attack complexity is high (AC:H), as it depends on specific proxy configurations and user choices. No privileges or user interaction are required once the proxy is set. The vulnerability is rated low severity with a CVSS 3.1 score of 3.2, reflecting limited impact and exploitation difficulty. Additionally, the advisory notes unsafe practices such as placing the ~/.gosign directory in untrusted user home directories, which could lead to execution of malicious files by other users, compounding risk. No known exploits are reported in the wild, and no patches are currently linked, indicating the need for cautious configuration and monitoring.

CWE-295Improper Certificate Validation (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Certificates should be carefully managed and checked to assure that data are encrypted with the intended owner's public key.
Implementation
If certificate pinning is being used, ensure that all relevant properties of the certificate are fully validated before the certificate is pinned, including the hostname.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Transport Layer Protection (opens in a new tab)
TLS Cipher String (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V9.2.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.9.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Improper Validation (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 17 Nov 2025, 16:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats