CVE-2025-9983VulnerabilityPublished 22 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-9983: GALAYOU G2 · Missing Authentication

Affects GALAYOU G2Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

7.1High

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 52% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
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: Adjacent: The vulnerable system is bound to a protocol 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 proximity (e.g., Bluetooth, NFC, or IEEE 802.11) or logical network (e.g., local IP subnet), or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN within an administrative network zone).
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 22 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 2026-10-25.

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
GALAYOU G2	Affected =11.100001.01.28	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of vendor patches, European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Network Segmentation: Isolate GALAYOU G2 cameras on dedicated VLANs or subnets with strict access controls to limit who can reach the RTSP streams. 2) Access Control Lists (ACLs): Configure firewalls and network devices to restrict RTSP traffic only to authorized monitoring stations or management systems. 3) Disable RTSP if not required or replace with more secure streaming protocols if supported. 4) Use VPNs or secure tunnels with strong authentication for remote access to camera streams, ensuring that only authenticated users can reach the camera network segment. 5) Monitor network traffic for unusual RTSP access patterns or unauthorized connections. 6) Consider replacing vulnerable cameras with models from vendors that provide proper authentication and timely security updates. 7) Implement physical security controls to prevent unauthorized local network access. 8) Regularly audit camera firmware versions and configurations to detect vulnerable devices. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on network-level controls and operational practices to compensate for the lack of device-level authentication.

Description

GALAYOU G2 cameras stream video output via RTSP streams. By default these streams are protected by randomly generated credentials. However these credentials are not required to access the stream. Changing these values does not change camera's behavior. The vendor did not respond in any way. Only version 11.100001.01.28 was tested, other versions might also be vulnerable.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant privacy and security risk. Many organizations deploy IP cameras like GALAYOU G2 for surveillance, security monitoring, and operational oversight. Unauthorized access to live video streams can lead to exposure of sensitive information, including physical security layouts, personnel movements, and confidential activities. This can facilitate espionage, stalking, or targeted attacks. In sectors such as critical infrastructure, government facilities, healthcare, and corporate environments, compromised video feeds could undermine operational security and regulatory compliance (e.g., GDPR requirements for protecting personal data). The lack of authentication also increases the risk of insider threats or attackers who gain limited network access. Since the vulnerability requires network adjacency, organizations with segmented networks or strict access controls may reduce exposure, but remote access solutions or VPNs could still be exploited. The vendor's lack of response and absence of patches further exacerbate the risk, leaving organizations to rely on compensating controls.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Sep 2025, 11:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-306

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats