CVE-2025-64734VulnerabilityPublished 18 Nov 2025

Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime in the T21 Reader allows an attacker with physical

Source GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2025-64734· Low 2.4

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.4 Low · fixed in 9.30.251028a : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 13 Nov 2026, 19:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.4Low

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

Thin evidence

One scorer or none

CVSS scores by source
CNA (Gallagher)	CVSS 3.1	2.4

Patch: Available – fixed in 9.30.251028a, 9.20.251028a, 9.10.251028a +1

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

Attack Vector: Physical
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: 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 18 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 13 Nov 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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.

ghsa-r4wh-whpg-rc2q

What to do

AI-suggested

Fixed versions are available starting from vCR9.30.251028a (distributed in 9.30.2881 MR3), vCR9.20.251028a (distributed in 9.20.3265 MR5), and vCR9.10.251028a (distributed in 9.10.4135 MR8). Users should upgrade to these or later versions to remediate the vulnerability. Since the vendor advisory is not explicitly provided, patch status is inferred from the version information given. No additional mitigations or workarounds are described.

Description

CVE-2025-64734 is a low-severity vulnerability in the T21 Reader component of the Command Centre Server. It involves a missing release of a resource after its effective lifetime (CWE-772), which can be exploited by an attacker with physical access to cause a denial-of-service (DoS) condition. This prevents legitimate cardholders from badging for entry. The issue affects multiple versions of the Command Centre Server prior to specific fixed releases in the 9.30, 9.20, and 9.10 branches, as well as all versions 9.00 and earlier.

CWE-772Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not release a resource after its effective lifetime has ended, i.e., after the resource is no longer needed.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Implementation
It is good practice to be responsible for freeing all resources you allocate and to be consistent with how and where you free resources in a function. If you allocate resources that you intend to free upon completion of the function, you must be sure to free the resources at all exit points for that function including…
Operation · Architecture and Design · Resource Limitation
Use resource-limiting settings provided by the operating system or environment. For example, when managing system resources in POSIX, setrlimit() can be used to set limits for certain types of resources, and getrlimit() can determine how many resources are available.
Attack patterns
HTTP DoS (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 13 Nov 2026, 19:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-772

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats