CVE-2025-67282VulnerabilityPublished 9 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-67282: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% 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:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 9 Jan 2026
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

Immediate mitigation steps include restricting access to TIM BPM Suite and TIM FLOW to trusted users only and enforcing the principle of least privilege rigorously. Organizations should monitor logs for unusual access patterns, such as low-privileged users accessing or modifying other users' data or workflow content. Network segmentation can limit the exposure of BPM systems to internal users only. Until patches or updates are released, consider implementing compensating controls such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all users, especially those with elevated privileges. Conduct a thorough audit of user permissions and remove unnecessary privileges. If possible, disable or restrict features that allow modification of application branding or user profiles. Engage with the vendor for timely patches or official guidance. Additionally, educate users about the risks of phishing and social engineering that could exploit altered application branding. Regularly back up workflow configurations and data to enable recovery in case of tampering.

Description

In TIM BPM Suite/ TIM FLOW through 9.1.2 multiple Authorization Bypass vulnerabilities exists which allow a low privileged user to download password hashes of other user, access work items of other user, modify restricted content in workflows, modify the applications logo and manipulate the profile of other user.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-67282 could be substantial, especially for those relying on TIM BPM Suite or TIM FLOW for critical business process management. Unauthorized access to password hashes risks credential theft and lateral movement within corporate networks, potentially leading to broader compromise. Exposure and modification of work items and workflow content can disrupt business operations, cause data integrity issues, and lead to compliance violations under regulations like GDPR if personal or sensitive data is involved. Manipulation of user profiles and application branding could facilitate phishing or social engineering attacks, undermining user trust. The vulnerabilities could also affect availability if workflow processes are corrupted or blocked. Given the central role of BPM tools in coordinating enterprise workflows, exploitation could have cascading effects across multiple departments and services. Organizations in sectors with stringent data protection requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and government, may face heightened risks and regulatory scrutiny.

CWE-288Authentication Bypass Using an Alternate Path or Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product requires authentication, but the product has an alternate path or channel that does not require authentication.
Architecture and Design
Funnel all access through a single choke point to simplify how users can access a resource. For every access, perform a check to determine if the user has permissions to access the resource.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Exploitation of Thunderbolt Protection Flaws (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 9 Jan 2026, 16:09 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-288

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats