CVE-2025-65117VulnerabilityPublished 16 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-65117: AVEVA Process Optimization · CWE-676

Affects AVEVA Process OptimizationSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
AVEVAProcess Optimization	Affected <=2024.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Restrict Process Optimization Designer user privileges strictly to trusted personnel and enforce the principle of least privilege. 2. Implement rigorous user activity monitoring and auditing to detect unusual embedding of OLE objects or unexpected graphical content changes. 3. Educate users to be cautious when interacting with graphical elements, especially those created or modified by other users. 4. Apply network segmentation and access controls to limit the ability of authenticated users to reach critical systems unnecessarily. 5. Employ application whitelisting and endpoint protection solutions that can detect or block suspicious OLE object embedding or execution. 6. Regularly check for vendor updates or patches from AVEVA and apply them promptly once available. 7. Consider disabling or restricting OLE object embedding features if feasible within operational requirements. 8. Conduct internal penetration testing and vulnerability assessments focusing on AVEVA Process Optimization deployments to identify potential exploitation paths. 9. Maintain incident response readiness to quickly contain and remediate any exploitation attempts.

Description

The vulnerability, if exploited, could allow an authenticated miscreant (Process Optimization Designer User) to embed OLE objects into graphics, and escalate their privileges to the identity of a victim user who subsequently interacts with the graphical elements.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in industrial automation, manufacturing, and critical infrastructure sectors using AVEVA Process Optimization, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Exploitation could allow attackers to escalate privileges and impersonate legitimate users, potentially leading to unauthorized access to sensitive process data, manipulation of operational parameters, and disruption of process integrity. This could result in operational downtime, safety incidents, intellectual property theft, and regulatory non-compliance. Given the high confidentiality and integrity impact, attackers could covertly alter process optimization data or configurations, undermining trust in automated systems. The requirement for authenticated access and user interaction somewhat limits the attack surface but does not eliminate risk, particularly in environments with multiple users and complex workflows. European organizations with interconnected systems and remote access capabilities may face increased exposure. The lack of a patch increases the urgency for interim mitigations to prevent exploitation.

CWE-676Use of Potentially Dangerous Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product invokes a potentially dangerous function that could introduce a vulnerability if it is used incorrectly, but the function can also be used safely.
Build and Compilation · Implementation
Identify a list of prohibited API functions and prohibit developers from using these functions, providing safer alternatives. In some cases, automatic code analysis tools or the compiler can be instructed to spot use of prohibited functions, such as the "banned.h" include file from Microsoft's SDL.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (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 16 Jan 2026, 00:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-676

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats