Wifi Lock Controller V1 Rf FirmwareOperating system · Tinxy

CVE-2025-44612

MEDIUM · 5.9 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-05-30
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
68/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

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 · unedited
Tinxy WiFi Lock Controller v1 RF was discovered to transmit sensitive information in plaintext, including control information and device credentials, allowing attackers to possibly intercept and access sensitive information via a man-in-the-middle 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 confidence

The Tinxy WiFi Lock Controller v1 RF transmits sensitive control information and device credentials in plaintext over the network. An attacker positioned man-in-the-middle can intercept these credentials and potentially take control of the lock device.

MitigationImplement TLS/SSL encryption for all network communications between the lock controller and backend servers. If the device firmware cannot be updated, consider network segmentation to limit exposure and monitor for suspicious interception attempts.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
Wifi Lock Controller V1 Rf FirmwareOperating system
Affected:all versions

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
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the device model
    Check the physical device label, packaging, or the device's admin/web interface for the exact model name and firmware version. Confirm it is a Tinxy WiFi Lock Controller V1 RF.
    Affected if The device is a Tinxy WiFi Lock Controller V1 RF
  2. Capture outbound network traffic
    Place a network packet sniffer (such as Wireshark or tcpdump) on the network segment between the Tinxy device and your router/gateway. Capture traffic while the device sends commands or communicates with its backend.
    Affected if Network traffic capture is possible without decryption requirements
  3. Inspect traffic for plaintext credentials
    Analyze the captured packets. Look for HTTP traffic (not HTTPS), unencrypted telnet, or other plaintext protocols. Search the payload for recognizable credential strings, device identifiers, or control command data transmitted without encryption.
    Affected if Credentials, device IDs, or control commands appear in the packet payload in plaintext (readable human text)
  4. Verify encryption protocol used
    Check if the device uses TLS/SSL (HTTPS, WSS, or other encrypted protocols) for its communications. In the captured traffic, look for the TLS handshake (ClientHello, ServerHello) before any authentication data is sent.
    Affected if The device does not establish a TLS/encrypted session before transmitting sensitive data

If the Tinxy WiFi Lock Controller V1 RF transmits authentication credentials or lock control commands over the network in plaintext without TLS/SSL encryption, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement TLS/SSL encryption for all network communications between the lock controller and backend servers. If the device firmware cannot be updated, consider network segmentation to limit exposure and monitor for suspicious interception attempts.

Fix this in Wifi Lock Controller V1 Rf Firmware Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation12.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
23.0 hours of engineering $4,100
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,560.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-44612 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-44612 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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