CVE-2025-65822VulnerabilityPublished 10 Dec 2025Updated 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-65822: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Physical
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
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: 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: 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 10 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 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

AI-suggested

1. Disable JTAG interface in all production ESP32 devices, including Meatmeet Pro, by configuring firmware and hardware settings before deployment. 2. Implement strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized access to devices, especially in public or semi-public environments. 3. Conduct inventory and audits of deployed ESP32-based devices to identify those with JTAG enabled and prioritize their replacement or reconfiguration. 4. Use secure boot and firmware signing mechanisms to prevent unauthorized firmware flashing even if JTAG is accessible. 5. Segment IoT devices on isolated network segments to limit the impact of compromised devices on critical infrastructure. 6. Educate staff on the risks of physical access attacks and enforce policies for device handling and storage. 7. Engage with device manufacturers to request firmware updates or hardware revisions that disable JTAG by default. 8. Monitor network traffic for unusual connections or attempts to access Wi-Fi credentials from IoT devices. 9. Consider deploying tamper-evident seals or enclosures to detect physical intrusion attempts. 10. Develop incident response plans that include scenarios involving physical compromise of IoT devices.

Description

The ESP32 system on a chip (SoC) that powers the Meatmeet Pro was found to have JTAG enabled. By leaving JTAG enabled on an ESP32 in a commercial product an attacker with physical access to the device can connect over this port and reflash the device's firmware with malicious code which will be executed upon running. As a result, the victim will lose access to the functionality of their device and the attack may gain unauthorized access to the victim's Wi-Fi network by re-connecting to the SSID defined in the NVS partition of the device.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk especially for those deploying Meatmeet Pro devices or other ESP32-based products with JTAG enabled. The primary impact is loss of device integrity and availability, as attackers can reflash firmware and disable device functionality. Furthermore, the compromise of Wi-Fi credentials threatens network confidentiality and can lead to broader network intrusions. Organizations relying on these devices for critical operations or connected to sensitive networks could face operational disruptions and data breaches. The requirement for physical access limits remote exploitation but increases risk in environments with insufficient physical security controls, such as public or semi-public spaces, manufacturing floors, or distributed IoT deployments. The lack of available patches means organizations must rely on physical security and configuration changes to mitigate risk. This vulnerability also raises concerns about supply chain security and device hardening practices in IoT manufacturing, which are relevant across European industries adopting connected devices.

CWE-1191On-Chip Debug and Test Interface With Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The chip does not implement or does not correctly perform access control to check whether users are authorized to access internal registers and test modes through the physical debug/test interface.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
If feasible, the manufacturer should disable the JTAG interface or implement authentication and authorization for the JTAG interface. If authentication logic is added, it should be resistant to timing attacks. Security-sensitive data stored in registers, such as keys, etc. should be cleared when entering debug mode.
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)
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
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (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 17 Dec 2025, 22:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1191

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats