VulnerabilityPublished 23 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-70045: Improper Certificate Validation

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.4 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.4High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
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: 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: 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: 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 23 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 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

To mitigate CVE-2025-70045, organizations should immediately audit all instances of jxcore jxm usage in their environments, focusing on HTTPS request configurations. Specifically, ensure that the 'rejectUnauthorized' option is either set to true or omitted to enforce default certificate validation behavior. Developers should review code to remove any explicit disabling of TLS/SSL certificate validation, particularly where 'jx_obj.IsSecure' is true. Implement strict TLS policies and consider using certificate pinning where feasible to further strengthen trust in server certificates. Network defenses such as TLS interception detection and anomaly monitoring can help identify potential MITM attempts. Organizations should track updates from the jxcore project or maintainers for official patches addressing this vulnerability and apply them promptly. Additionally, conduct penetration testing and vulnerability scanning to verify that certificate validation is properly enforced. Educate development teams on the importance of TLS validation and secure coding practices to prevent similar misconfigurations. If immediate patching is not possible, consider isolating vulnerable components or restricting network access to reduce exposure. Finally, maintain comprehensive logging and monitoring to detect suspicious network activity indicative of exploitation attempts.

Description

An issue pertaining to CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation was discovered in jxcore jxm master. The application disables TLS/SSL certificate validation by setting 'rejectUnauthorized': false in HTTPS request options when 'jx_obj.IsSecure' is true

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-70045 is the compromise of confidentiality and integrity of data transmitted over supposedly secure HTTPS connections. By disabling certificate validation, attackers can perform man-in-the-middle attacks to intercept sensitive data such as credentials, personal information, or proprietary business data. They may also manipulate data in transit, leading to potential injection of malicious payloads or unauthorized commands. This undermines trust in the application’s communications and can lead to data breaches, regulatory non-compliance, and reputational damage. Since the vulnerability does not affect availability, denial-of-service is not a direct concern. However, the high impact on confidentiality and integrity poses significant risks to organizations relying on jxcore jxm for secure communications, especially in sectors handling sensitive or regulated data such as finance, healthcare, and government. The lack of authentication or user interaction required for exploitation increases the threat level, as attackers can remotely exploit the vulnerability without needing credentials or user action. The high attack complexity suggests some network positioning or conditions are needed, but this does not significantly reduce the risk given the widespread use of jxcore jxm in various environments. Overall, the vulnerability could facilitate espionage, data theft, and injection of malicious content, severely impacting affected organizations worldwide.

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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Mar 2026, 01:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-295

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats