VulnerabilityPublished 9 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-7970: Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Activation Manager · Missing Authentication

Affects Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Activation ManagerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.7 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

8.7High

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

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

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: High: There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Sep 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 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 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
Rockwell Automation FactoryTalk Activation Manager	Affected =5.00	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Organizations should maintain close communication with Rockwell Automation for updates. 2. Implement network segmentation to isolate FactoryTalk Activation Manager and related ICS components from general IT networks and the internet, reducing exposure to remote attacks. 3. Employ strict access controls and monitoring on systems running FactoryTalk Activation Manager, including limiting administrative access to trusted personnel and using multi-factor authentication where possible. 4. Deploy network intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or heuristics capable of detecting anomalous traffic patterns or unauthorized access attempts targeting FactoryTalk Activation Manager. 5. Encrypt all communications at the network layer (e.g., VPNs, TLS) to add an additional security layer beyond the vulnerable application-level cryptography. 6. Conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments focused on ICS environments to identify and remediate weaknesses proactively. 7. Develop and test incident response plans specific to ICS compromise scenarios to minimize operational impact in case of exploitation.

Description

A security issue exists within FactoryTalk Activation Manager. An error in the implementation of cryptography within the software could allow attackers to decrypt traffic. This could result in data exposure, session hijacking, or full communication compromise.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those operating in manufacturing, energy, utilities, and critical infrastructure sectors, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk. FactoryTalk Activation Manager is integral to managing software licenses and activation in industrial environments, and its compromise could lead to unauthorized access to industrial control systems or disruption of operational technology (OT) workflows. Data exposure through decrypted traffic could reveal sensitive operational data or intellectual property. Session hijacking could allow attackers to impersonate legitimate users or administrators, leading to unauthorized changes or sabotage. Given Europe's strong industrial base and reliance on automation and ICS, exploitation could result in operational downtime, financial losses, and safety hazards. Furthermore, regulatory frameworks such as the NIS Directive and GDPR impose strict requirements on protecting critical infrastructure and personal data, and a breach exploiting this vulnerability could lead to compliance violations and reputational damage.

CWE-306Missing Authentication for Critical Function (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #21OWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform any authentication for functionality that requires a provable user identity or consumes a significant amount of resources.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Identify which of these areas require a proven user identity, and use a centralized authentication capability.
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…
Architecture and Design
Where possible, avoid implementing custom, "grow-your-own" authentication routines and consider using authentication capabilities as provided by the surrounding framework, operating system, or environment.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.2.3 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
V1.2.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Choosing Message Identifier (opens in a new tab)
Force the System to Reset Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Unpublished Interfaces or Functionality (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Request Forgery (opens in a new tab)
Communication Channel Manipulation (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

rockwellautomation.com/en-us/trust-center/security-advisories/advisory.SD1741.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Sep 2025, 13:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats