CVE-2025-66723VulnerabilityPublished 30 Dec 2025Updated 5 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-66723: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High · fixed in 4.3.4 : patch affected systems soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.3.4

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

Attack Vector: Network
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: 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: 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 30 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. Immediately restrict network access to the Remote Library HTTP service using firewalls or network segmentation to limit exposure to trusted hosts only. 2. Implement strict access controls and authentication mechanisms around the HTTP service if possible, even before official patches are available. 3. Monitor network traffic for unusual access patterns to the Remote Library service to detect potential exploitation attempts. 4. Regularly audit file permissions and network shares on systems running Engine DJ to ensure no unintended exposure. 5. Plan and prioritize upgrading to version 4.3.4 or later as soon as the patch is released by inMusic Brands. 6. Educate IT and security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid response and containment. 7. Consider deploying host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to alert on unauthorized file access attempts related to this service.

Description

inMusic Brands Engine DJ before 4.3.4 suffers from Insecure Permissions due to exposed HTTP service in the Remote Library, which allows attackers to access all files and network paths.

Impact

For European organizations, the exposure of sensitive files and network paths can lead to significant data breaches, intellectual property theft, and potential exposure of personal data protected under GDPR. Industries such as music production, event management, and entertainment technology—where Engine DJ software is commonly used—are at heightened risk. Attackers could leverage this vulnerability to gain insights into network architecture or harvest credentials stored in accessible files, enabling further compromise. The confidentiality breach could damage brand reputation, lead to regulatory fines, and disrupt business operations. Since the vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability directly, the immediate operational impact may be limited, but the long-term consequences of data exposure are severe. European organizations with remote or cloud-based deployments of Engine DJ are particularly vulnerable due to the network-exposed HTTP service.

CWE-732Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
Implementation
When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user), and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (opens in a new tab)
Signing Malicious Code (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 6 Jan 2026, 23:53 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-732

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats