CVE-2025-65239VulnerabilityPublished 26 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-65239: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% 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:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 26 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 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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately audit access controls on the /aux1/ocussd/trace endpoint to ensure only authorized personnel can access server logs. Implement role-based access control (RBAC) or similar mechanisms to restrict endpoint usage strictly to trusted administrators. Network-level protections such as IP whitelisting, VPN access, or firewall rules should be applied to limit exposure of the endpoint. Regularly review and sanitize server logs to avoid storing sensitive information unnecessarily. Monitor access logs for unusual or unauthorized access attempts to the trace endpoint. If possible, update or patch the USSD Gateway software once a vendor fix is released. In the interim, consider disabling or restricting the trace endpoint if it is not essential for operations. Conduct security awareness training for administrators to recognize and report suspicious activities related to this vulnerability.

Description

CVE-2025-65239 is a medium-severity vulnerability in OpenCode Systems USSD Gateway OC Release 5, version 6.13.11, where improper access control on the /aux1/ocussd/trace endpoint allows attackers with low-level privileges to read server logs. This flaw does not require user interaction and can be exploited remotely over the network. The vulnerability impacts confidentiality by exposing potentially sensitive log data but does not affect integrity or availability. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. European organizations using this USSD gateway software could face information disclosure risks, especially telecom operators and service providers. Mitigation involves implementing strict access controls on the affected endpoint and monitoring for unauthorized access attempts. Countries with significant telecom infrastructure using OpenCode Systems products, such as Germany, France, and the UK, are more likely to be affected. The CVSS score of 4.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly telecom operators and mobile service providers using OpenCode Systems USSD Gateway OC Release 5, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized disclosure of server logs. Exposure of logs can reveal sensitive operational details, user session information, or internal system errors, potentially aiding attackers in crafting more sophisticated attacks or violating user privacy regulations such as GDPR. While the vulnerability does not directly disrupt service availability or data integrity, the confidentiality breach could undermine trust and lead to regulatory penalties. The impact is more pronounced in countries with large telecom markets and critical communications infrastructure, where such gateways are integral to mobile network operations and customer service platforms.

Summary

CVE-2025-65239 identifies an incorrect access control vulnerability in the /aux1/ocussd/trace endpoint of OpenCode Systems USSD Gateway OC Release 5, version 6.13.11. This endpoint is intended for tracing or diagnostic purposes but lacks proper authorization checks, allowing attackers with low-level privileges (PR:L) to remotely access server logs without requiring user interaction. The vulnerability is categorized under CWE-284 (Improper Access Control), indicating a failure to restrict access to sensitive resources appropriately. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 4.3, with vector AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N, meaning the attack can be performed over the network with low attack complexity, requires some privileges but no user interaction, and impacts confidentiality only. Server logs may contain sensitive information such as system details, error messages, or user data, which could aid attackers in further reconnaissance or targeted attacks. No patches or exploits are currently documented, but the vulnerability's presence in a telecom-related gateway product suggests a potential risk to communications infrastructure. The lack of integrity or availability impact limits the severity, but confidentiality breaches in telecom environments can have serious privacy and security implications.

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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Dec 2025, 16:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats