VulnerabilityPublished 22 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-69821: Improper Resource Shutdown or Release

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 35% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: 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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 22 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Restrict BLE connectivity by configuring smartwatches to only pair with trusted devices and disabling BLE when not in use.
Implement BLE monitoring tools to detect unusual or malformed BLE traffic patterns indicative of an attack.
Enforce physical security controls to limit attacker proximity to devices, especially in sensitive environments.
Educate users on the risks of connecting to unknown BLE devices and encourage vigilance.
Coordinate with the device vendor to obtain firmware updates as soon as they become available and plan timely deployment.
Consider network segmentation or isolation for devices communicating via BLE to limit attack surface.
Use BLE protocol security features such as encryption and authentication where supported.
Maintain up-to-date inventories of wearable devices to quickly identify and respond to affected units.
Prepare incident response plans for DoS scenarios involving wearable devices to minimize operational impact.
Evaluate alternative devices or vendors with stronger security postures if mitigation options are limited.

Description

An issue in Beat XP VEGA Smartwatch (Firmware Version - RB303ATV006229) allows an attacker to cause a denial of service via the BLE connection

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-69821 is operational disruption due to denial of service on affected smartwatches. Organizations using these devices for critical functions such as employee health tracking, safety monitoring, or communication may experience interruptions that affect productivity and safety compliance. In healthcare or industrial environments, loss of wearable device availability could delay response times or reduce situational awareness. Although no data breach or integrity compromise is indicated, repeated DoS attacks could erode trust in the device and increase support costs. The wireless nature of the attack means that attackers do not need physical access, increasing the risk in public or shared spaces. The absence of a patch prolongs exposure, requiring organizations to implement compensating controls. The impact is more pronounced in sectors with high smartwatch adoption and reliance on BLE connectivity. Overall, the threat could lead to moderate operational risk and potential indirect financial losses due to downtime or mitigation efforts.

CWE-404Improper Resource Shutdown or Release (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product does not release or incorrectly releases a resource before it is made available for re-use.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
It is good practice to be responsible for freeing all resources you allocate and to be consistent with how and where you free memory in a function. If you allocate memory that you intend to free upon completion of the function, you must be sure to free the memory at all exit points for that function including error…
Implementation
Memory should be allocated/freed using matching functions such as malloc/free, new/delete, and new[]/delete[].
Attack patterns
TCP Fragmentation (opens in a new tab)
UDP Fragmentation (opens in a new tab)
ICMP Fragmentation (opens in a new tab)
BlueSmacking (opens in a new tab)
Flooding (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 22 Jan 2026, 15:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-404

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats