CVE-2025-42603
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 · uneditedThis vulnerability exists in the Meon KYC solutions due to transmission of sensitive data in plain text within the response payloads of certain API endpoints. An authenticated remote attacker could exploit this vulnerability by intercepting API response that contains unencrypted sensitive information belonging to other users. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could allow remote attacker to impersonate the target user and gain unauthorized access to the user account.
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 · moderate confidenceMeon KYC solutions contain API endpoints that return sensitive user data in plaintext/unencrypted format within response payloads. An authenticated attacker can intercept these API responses to access other users' sensitive KYC information, enabling impersonation and unauthorized account access.
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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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.
-
Confirm Meon KYC solution deploymentInventory your applications and services to identify if Meon KYC or any related KYC solution is deployed in your environment. Check application dependency lists, installed packages, or service documentation.Affected if Meon KYC solution is present in the environment
-
Identify API endpoints handling KYC dataReview your API documentation, network traffic logs, or use API discovery tools to locate endpoints that process or return user KYC information such as identity documents, personal details, or verification status.Affected if API endpoints handling KYC data exist and are accessible
-
Capture and inspect API response payloadsUsing a proxy tool, network sniffer, or API testing tool, capture API responses from the KYC endpoints. Examine the response body for sensitive fields such as name, address, document numbers, or document images.Affected if Sensitive KYC data appears in plaintext within response payloads
-
Verify transport layer encryptionCheck if the API endpoints use HTTPS/TLS by examining the URL scheme in API calls and verifying valid SSL/TLS certificates are presented during API communication.Affected if API calls use HTTP instead of HTTPS or TLS verification fails
-
Check data masking in responsesInspect API responses to determine if sensitive fields are masked, encrypted, or tokenized rather than displayed in readable plaintext format.Affected if Sensitive fields are returned in readable plaintext without masking or encryption
A user is affected if they have deployed Meon KYC solutions with API endpoints that return sensitive user data in plaintext within unencrypted or improperly secured API responses.
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 TLS/HTTPS for all API communications and ensure sensitive data in API responses is encrypted or properly masked rather than transmitted in plaintext. Review all endpoint responses for data leakage.
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation20.0 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 $14,784.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-42603 — 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-2025-42603 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