CVE-2025-46408
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in the methods push.lite.avtech.com.AvtechLib.GetHttpsResponse and push.lite.avtech.com.Push_HttpService.getNewHttpClient in AVTECH EagleEyes 2.0.0. The methods set ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER, bypassing domain validation.
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 AVTECH EagleEyes mobile application uses ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER in two methods (GetHttpsResponse and getNewHttpClient), which completely bypasses SSL/TLS certificate validation. This allows man-in-the-middle attackers to intercept encrypted communications by presenting invalid or malicious certificates, as the application will accept any certificate regardless of validity.
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= 2.0.0CVSS 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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 applicationLocate the AVTECH EagleEyes or EagleEyes Lite application on the device. On Android, check the app info in Settings > Apps > EagleEyes. On iOS, check the app version in Settings > EagleEyes.Affected if The application name is Avtech EagleEyes or EagleEyes Lite
-
Determine the exact version numberRead the application version from the device's app settings or by inspecting the APK (Android) or IPA (iOS) file metadata.Affected if The version is exactly 2.0.0
-
Inspect app code for vulnerable hostname verifierDecompile the application APK or IPA and examine the source code. Search for occurrences of ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER in the GetHttpsResponse and getNewHttpClient methods or any other network-related code.Affected if Code contains ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER which disables certificate validation
-
Verify network/HTTPS feature is enabledConfirm the application has network communication capabilities enabled and is configured to connect to AVTECH cloud services for remote viewing or device management.Affected if The app uses HTTPS connections to AVTECH servers for remote access features
The environment is affected if the AVTECH EagleEyes Lite application version is exactly 2.0.0 and the app binary contains ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER in network-related code, exposing SSL/TLS communications to man-in-the-middle attacks.
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 dataReplace ALLOW_ALL_HOSTNAME_VERIFIER with a proper hostname verifier (such as StrictHostnameVerifier or custom implementation that validates against expected domains) and implement full certificate chain validation to ensure secure HTTPS communications.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46408 — 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-2025-46408 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