CVE-2025-69431VulnerabilityPublished 3 Feb 2026Updated 6 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-69431: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Physical
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: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
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 3 Feb 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

1. Restrict physical access to NAS devices by securing server rooms and device locations with controlled entry and surveillance. 2. Disable or physically block USB ports on the NAS devices if they are not required for legitimate operations. 3. Monitor Samba shares for unusual access patterns or file modifications, and implement logging and alerting to detect suspicious activity. 4. Implement strict network segmentation to limit access to NAS devices only to authorized users and systems. 5. Regularly audit NAS device configurations and access controls to ensure compliance with security policies. 6. Engage with the vendor to obtain patches or firmware updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available. 7. Educate staff about the risks of physical device tampering and enforce policies against unauthorized device access. 8. Consider deploying endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions that can detect anomalous file system activities related to symbolic link exploitation. 9. If possible, configure Samba to restrict or disable symbolic link following to reduce attack surface. 10. Maintain regular backups of NAS data to enable recovery in case of tampering or data loss.

Description

The ZSPACE Q2C NAS contains a vulnerability related to incorrect symbolic link following. Attackers can format a USB drive to ext4, create a symbolic link to its root directory, insert the drive into the NAS device's slot, and then access the USB drive's directory mounted on the NAS using the Samba protocol. This allows them to obtain all files within the NAS system and tamper with those files.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability can lead to unauthorized disclosure and modification of sensitive data stored on ZSPACE Q2C NAS devices. The ability to tamper with files without authentication undermines data integrity and confidentiality, potentially causing operational disruptions, data breaches, and compliance violations under regulations such as GDPR. Organizations in sectors like finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure that use these NAS devices may face significant risks. The requirement for physical access limits remote exploitation but increases the threat from insider attacks or physical security breaches. The lack of availability impact means the NAS continues to operate normally, potentially masking the compromise. This could facilitate prolonged unauthorized access and data manipulation, complicating detection and forensic analysis. The vulnerability also raises concerns about trust in network file sharing protocols like Samba when combined with flawed device firmware. Overall, the threat could lead to loss of intellectual property, exposure of personal data, and damage to organizational reputation.

CWE-59Improper Link Resolution Before File Access ('Link Following') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product attempts to access a file based on the filename, but it does not properly prevent that filename from identifying a link or shortcut that resolves to an unintended resource.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Symlink Attack (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Leverage Executable Code in Non-Executable Files (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

notion.so/ZSPACE-Incorrect-Symlink-Follow-2c26cf4e528a8087ba14d9b1d31a5bb2?source=copy_link (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Feb 2026, 11:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-59

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats