CVE-2025-27594
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe device uses an unencrypted, proprietary protocol for communication. Through this protocol, configuration data is transmitted and device authentication is performed. An attacker can thereby intercept the authentication hash and use it to log into the device using a pass-the-hash attack.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe device uses an unencrypted, proprietary protocol for communication and authentication. An attacker positioned on the network can intercept authentication hashes transmitted in cleartext and reuse them in a pass-the-hash attack to gain unauthorized access to the device without knowing the actual password.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify communication protocol configurationReview device documentation or network configuration settings to determine which protocol is used for remote management or client-server communicationAffected if The device uses a proprietary, unencrypted protocol for authentication and communication
-
Verify if TLS/SSL encryption is enabledCheck the communication settings, SSL/TLS configuration, or security settings menu to see if encryption is enabled or disabled for the protocolAffected if TLS/SSL encryption is disabled or not available for the communication channel
-
Inspect network traffic for cleartext hash transmissionUse a network sniffer or packet capture tool on the network segment between client and device to observe authentication trafficAffected if Authentication credentials or hashes are transmitted in cleartext without encryption during the login process
-
Check for certificate-based or salted hash authenticationExamine the authentication method configuration in the device settings or security documentationAffected if The device uses only simple hash comparison without salting or certificate-based verification, allowing hash reuse
-
Verify network exposureConfirm whether the device is accessible over network segments where an attacker could intercept traffic (LAN, VPN, or untrusted networks)Affected if The device is reachable on network segments where traffic interception is possible
A user is affected if the device uses an unencrypted proprietary protocol that transmits authentication hashes in cleartext, enabling pass-the-hash attacks from an attacker on the network path.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement encryption (e.g., TLS) on the communication channel and migrate to certificate-based or salted hash authentication to prevent hash interception and reuse.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-27594 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-27594 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data