CVE-2025-6798VulnerabilityPublished 7 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-6798: Marvell QConvergeConsole · Path Traversal

Affects Marvell QConvergeConsoleSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.2 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

8.2High

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

EPSS: 1.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 72% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H

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

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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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: 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 7 Jul 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Marvell QConvergeConsole	Affected =5.5.0.78	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch at the time of disclosure, European organizations should implement immediate compensating controls. First, restrict network access to the QConvergeConsole management interface by applying strict firewall rules and network segmentation to limit exposure only to trusted administrators and management networks. Employ VPNs or zero-trust network access solutions to secure remote management connections. Monitor logs and network traffic for unusual deleteAppFile method invocations or anomalous file deletion activities. Implement file integrity monitoring on critical system and application files to detect unauthorized deletions promptly. If possible, disable or restrict the deleteAppFile functionality until a patch is available. Engage with Marvell support to obtain any available security advisories or beta patches. Regularly back up configuration and system files to enable rapid recovery in case of successful exploitation. Finally, maintain up-to-date asset inventories to identify all instances of QConvergeConsole and prioritize remediation efforts accordingly.

Description

Marvell QConvergeConsole deleteAppFile Directory Traversal Arbitrary File Deletion Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to delete arbitrary files on affected installations of Marvell QConvergeConsole. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the implementation of the deleteAppFile method. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of a user-supplied path prior to using it in file operations. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to delete files in the context of SYSTEM. Was ZDI-CAN-24918.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-6798 can be substantial, especially those relying on Marvell QConvergeConsole for network device management. Successful exploitation can lead to arbitrary deletion of files with SYSTEM privileges, potentially causing service outages, loss of configuration data, or disruption of network operations. This can affect availability of critical network services and may also facilitate further attacks if key security or system files are deleted. Organizations in sectors such as telecommunications, finance, government, and critical infrastructure that depend on stable network management platforms are particularly at risk. The lack of authentication requirement increases the attack surface, allowing external attackers to target exposed QConvergeConsole instances remotely. This could lead to operational downtime, financial losses, regulatory compliance issues (e.g., GDPR if data availability is impacted), and reputational damage. Additionally, since the vulnerability affects integrity and availability but not confidentiality directly, attackers might use it as a stepping stone for more complex attacks or to disrupt services during geopolitical tensions or cyber conflict scenarios in Europe.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

zerodayinitiative.com/advisories/ZDI-25-457/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 15:12 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats