CVE-2025-65825VulnerabilityPublished 10 Dec 2025Updated 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-65825: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.6 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.6Medium

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

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

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: 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 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 2026-10-25.

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

1. Physically secure Meatmeet devices to prevent unauthorized access or tampering, especially in public or shared spaces. 2. Implement strict access controls and surveillance around device deployment areas to detect and deter physical attacks. 3. Network segmentation should be employed to isolate Meatmeet devices and their associated Wi-Fi networks from critical infrastructure and sensitive data systems. 4. Regularly monitor network traffic for unusual access patterns or unauthorized connections that may indicate credential compromise. 5. Advocate for or request firmware updates from the vendor that implement encryption of firmware storage and secure handling of sensitive credentials. 6. Consider replacing or supplementing Meatmeet devices with alternatives that follow stronger security practices if firmware encryption is not forthcoming. 7. Educate staff about the risks of physical device access and enforce policies to report lost or tampered devices promptly.

Description

The firmware on the basestation of the Meatmeet is not encrypted. An adversary with physical access to the Meatmeet device can disassemble the device, connect over UART, and retrieve the firmware dump for analysis. Within the NVS partition they may discover the credentials of the current and previous Wi-Fi networks. This information could be used to gain unauthorized access to the victim's Wi-Fi network.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is the potential compromise of Wi-Fi network credentials, which can lead to unauthorized network access. This is particularly concerning for organizations with sensitive or critical operations relying on Meatmeet devices, as attackers could leverage the extracted credentials to infiltrate internal networks, bypassing perimeter defenses. The confidentiality breach could expose sensitive communications and data transmitted over the compromised Wi-Fi networks. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the resulting network access could facilitate further attacks, including data theft, espionage, or lateral movement to critical systems. Organizations with devices deployed in publicly accessible or physically unprotected locations are at higher risk. The absence of encryption in firmware storage also indicates potential weaknesses in device security design, raising concerns about other undiscovered vulnerabilities.

CWE-311Missing Encryption of Sensitive Data (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not encrypt sensitive or critical information before storage or transmission.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Requirements
Clearly specify which data or resources are valuable enough that they should be protected by encryption. Require that any transmission or storage of this data/resource should use well-vetted encryption algorithms.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that encryption is properly integrated into the system design, including but not necessarily limited to: Encryption that is needed to store or transmit private data of the users of the system; Encryption that is needed to protect the system itself from unauthorized disclosure or tampering
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
When there is a need to store or transmit sensitive data, use strong, up-to-date cryptographic algorithms to encrypt that data. Select a well-vetted algorithm that is currently considered to be strong by experts in the field, and use well-tested implementations.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
User Privacy Protection (opens in a new tab)
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V6.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
V6.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V6.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Sniffing Attacks (opens in a new tab)
Sniffing Network Traffic (opens in a new tab)
Lifting Sensitive Data Embedded in Cache (opens in a new tab)
Accessing/Intercepting/Modifying HTTP Cookies (opens in a new tab)
Retrieve Embedded Sensitive Data (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-311

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats