VulnerabilityPublished 10 Dec 2025Updated 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-65830: Improper Certificate Validation

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.1 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.1Critical

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 18% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should focus on implementing strict certificate validation within the mobile application, ensuring that the app verifies the server's TLS certificate against trusted certificate authorities and rejects invalid or self-signed certificates. Developers should replace MD5 hashing with a secure, modern hashing algorithm such as bcrypt, Argon2, or SHA-256 with salt to protect login credentials. Employ certificate pinning to bind the app to specific certificates or public keys, reducing the risk of MITM attacks. Network traffic should be monitored for anomalies indicative of interception or modification attempts. Organizations should educate users about the risks of using unsecured Wi-Fi networks and encourage the use of VPNs for mobile connections. Incident response plans should include procedures for detecting and responding to token theft or account compromise. Regular security assessments and penetration testing of the mobile app should be conducted to identify and remediate similar weaknesses. Finally, vendors must prioritize releasing patches or updates to address this vulnerability promptly and communicate the urgency to their user base.

Description

Due to a lack of certificate validation, all traffic from the mobile application can be intercepted. As a result, an adversary located "upstream" can decrypt the TLS traffic, inspect its contents, and modify the requests in transit. This may result in a total compromise of the user's account if the attacker intercepts a request with active authentication tokens or cracks the MD5 hash sent on login.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant threat to data confidentiality and user account integrity, especially for those relying on the affected mobile application for sensitive operations or access to corporate resources. The interception and decryption of TLS traffic can lead to exposure of personal data, corporate credentials, and session tokens, violating GDPR requirements and potentially resulting in regulatory penalties. The ability to modify requests in transit can facilitate unauthorized transactions, data manipulation, or privilege escalation. Organizations with mobile workforces or customer-facing mobile apps are particularly vulnerable, as attackers can exploit insecure public or corporate Wi-Fi networks to perform MITM attacks. The compromise of authentication tokens can lead to lateral movement within corporate networks, increasing the risk of broader breaches. The use of MD5 hashing further weakens login security, increasing the likelihood of credential compromise. This vulnerability could also undermine trust in mobile services and damage brand reputation. Critical sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government services in Europe could face severe operational and reputational impacts if exploited.

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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Dec 2025, 22:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats