CVE-2025-69412VulnerabilityPublished 31 Dec 2025Updated 2 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-69412: KDE messagelib · Improper Certificate Validation

Affects KDE messagelibSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.4 Low.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.4Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 31 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
KDE messagelib	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should first verify whether their deployments of KDE messagelib have the Google Safe Browsing Lookup API enabled. If it is not required, disable this feature to eliminate exposure. Monitor network traffic for unusual SSL error bypass attempts or suspicious man-in-the-middle activity targeting messagelib API calls. Stay informed about KDE messagelib updates and apply patches promptly once they become available to address this vulnerability. Consider implementing additional layers of phishing detection that do not solely rely on the Lookup API to reduce dependency on potentially spoofed data. Network segmentation and use of encrypted, authenticated tunnels (e.g., VPNs) can reduce the risk of man-in-the-middle attacks. Finally, conduct regular security awareness training to mitigate the impact of phishing attacks that might bypass detection due to this vulnerability.

Description

KDE messagelib before 25.11.90 ignores SSL errors for threatMatches:find in the Google Safe Browsing Lookup API (aka phishing API), which might allow spoofing of threat data. NOTE: this Lookup API is not contacted in the messagelib default configuration.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability lies in the potential manipulation of phishing threat data used by security tools that integrate KDE messagelib with the Google Safe Browsing Lookup API. If exploited, attackers could feed false threat information, leading to inaccurate threat assessments or failure to detect real phishing attempts. This could increase the risk of successful phishing attacks, data breaches, or credential theft. However, since the Lookup API is not enabled by default, many organizations may not be exposed unless they have explicitly configured messagelib to use this API. The low CVSS score and absence of known exploits suggest limited immediate risk, but organizations relying on KDE messagelib for threat intelligence should be cautious. The impact is mainly on the integrity of threat data rather than confidentiality or availability, meaning the core systems are unlikely to be directly compromised by this vulnerability alone. Nonetheless, compromised threat data could indirectly facilitate further attacks.

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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jan 2026, 01:47 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats