VulnerabilityPublished 11 Nov 2025Updated 14 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-9524: AXIS OS · Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input

Affects AXIS OSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Nov 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Axis Communications AB AXIS OS	Affected 6.50.0 – 12.0.0 6 affected builds	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Enforce strict access control policies to limit authentication to trusted users only, employing strong authentication mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all viewer, operator, and administrator accounts.
Regularly audit and monitor access logs for unusual or unauthorized authentication attempts to the VAPIX API and related services.
Segment network access to AXIS OS devices, restricting API access to trusted management networks and minimizing exposure to untrusted networks.
Implement rate limiting and anomaly detection on API endpoints to detect and block malformed or suspicious input patterns that could trigger crashes.
Maintain an inventory of all AXIS OS devices and their firmware versions to prioritize patching once vendor updates become available.
Engage with Axis Communications for timely updates and apply patches promptly when released.
Educate administrators and operators on the importance of credential security to prevent unauthorized access.
Consider deploying redundancy or failover mechanisms for critical surveillance systems to mitigate availability impacts during potential crashes.

Description

The VAPIX API port.cgi did not have sufficient input validation, which may result in process crashes and impact usability. This vulnerability can only be exploited after authenticating with a viewer- operator- or administrator-privileged service account.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is on availability of AXIS OS-based surveillance devices, which are widely deployed in sectors such as transportation, government, critical infrastructure, and corporate security. Process crashes induced by this vulnerability could lead to temporary loss of video feeds or degraded device functionality, undermining security monitoring and incident response. This can increase the risk of undetected physical security breaches or delayed reactions to incidents. Organizations with large deployments of Axis devices or those relying heavily on continuous video surveillance are particularly vulnerable. The requirement for authenticated access limits exploitation to insiders or attackers who have compromised credentials, but insider threats or lateral movement within networks could still enable exploitation. The medium severity rating reflects that while confidentiality and integrity are not impacted, availability disruptions in security systems can have significant operational consequences. Additionally, the absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation before exploitation becomes widespread.

CWE-1287Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

axis.com/dam/public/f1/f0/1e/cve-2025-9524pdf-en-US-504220.pdf (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Nov 2025, 07:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1287

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats