CVE-2025-41459
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 · uneditedInsufficient protection against brute-force and runtime manipulation in the local authentication component in Two App Studio Journey 5.5.6 on iOS allows local attackers to bypass biometric and PIN-based access control via repeated PIN attempts or dynamic code injection.
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 confidenceTwo App Studio Journey 5.5.6 on iOS has insufficient protection against brute-force and runtime manipulation in its local authentication component, allowing local attackers to bypass biometric and PIN-based access controls through repeated PIN attempts or dynamic code injection.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 the installed App Studio Journey version on iOSOpen the iOS Settings app, navigate to Apps > App Studio Journey, or check the app version directly from the App Store/ios deployment tools. Compare the version number to 5.5.6.Affected if The installed version is exactly 5.5.6 on iOS.
-
Verify if local authentication is configuredOpen the App Studio Journey app and navigate to Settings > Security or Privacy settings. Check whether biometric authentication (Face ID/Touch ID) or PIN-based access controls are enabled.Affected if Local authentication (biometric or PIN) is enabled and the app version is 5.5.6.
-
Confirm absence of brute-force protectionAttempt to enter incorrect PIN codes repeatedly in the authentication prompt without any intervening restrictions. Observe whether the app allows unlimited attempts without triggering account lockout, progressive delays, or CAPTCHA-like challenges.Affected if The app permits unlimited PIN entry attempts without imposing any delays or lockout after failed attempts.
-
Check for runtime protection mechanismsInspect the iOS app bundle for the presence of anti-tampering, runtime application self-protection (RASP), or code obfuscation indicators. This may require mobile device management (MDM) tools or static analysis of the app binary.Affected if No runtime protection or anti-tampering measures are detected in the app bundle.
A user is affected if they have App Studio Journey version 5.5.6 on iOS with local authentication enabled and the app lacks brute-force protection and runtime manipulation defenses.
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 account lockout mechanisms with progressive delays after failed authentication attempts, integrate runtime application self-protection (RASP) or anti-tampering measures, and add code obfuscation to prevent dynamic code injection attacks.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-41459 — 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-2025-41459 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