CVE-2025-8729VulnerabilityPublished 8 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-8729: MigoXLab LMeterX · Path Traversal

Affects MigoXLab LMeterXSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 54% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 8 Aug 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
MigoXLab LMeterX	Affected =1.2.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should promptly apply the official patch identified by commit f1b00597e293d09452aabd4fa57f3185207350e8 to remediate the vulnerability. Until patching is possible, it is advisable to implement strict input validation and sanitization on the task_id parameter to prevent path traversal attempts. Network-level controls such as web application firewalls (WAFs) can be configured to detect and block suspicious path traversal patterns. Restricting access to the LMeterX service to trusted internal networks or VPNs can reduce exposure. Additionally, monitoring logs for unusual file access patterns or errors related to file handling may help detect exploitation attempts early. Regular security audits and code reviews focusing on input validation should be conducted to prevent similar vulnerabilities. Finally, organizations should ensure that sensitive files and directories have appropriate file system permissions to limit the impact of any unauthorized access.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in MigoXLab LMeterX 1.2.0 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is the function process_cert_files of the file backend/service/upload_service.py. The manipulation of the argument task_id leads to path traversal. The attack can be launched remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier of the patch is f1b00597e293d09452aabd4fa57f3185207350e8. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue.

Impact

For European organizations using MigoXLab LMeterX 1.2.0, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized access to sensitive files on the server hosting the application. This could lead to leakage of confidential data, including certificates or configuration files, potentially compromising the security posture of the organization. Attackers could leverage this access to gather intelligence for subsequent attacks, such as privilege escalation or lateral movement within the network. Given that the vulnerability can be exploited remotely without authentication, organizations with internet-facing LMeterX deployments are particularly at risk. This could impact sectors with high reliance on certificate management or monitoring tools, such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure. The medium severity rating suggests that while the vulnerability is not immediately catastrophic, failure to patch could result in data breaches or operational disruptions. European data protection regulations like GDPR impose strict requirements on data confidentiality, so exploitation could also lead to regulatory and reputational consequences.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…