CVE-2025-59479
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 · uneditedCHOCO TEI WATCHER mini (IB-MCT001) contains an issue with improper restriction of rendered UI layers or frames. If a user clicks on content on a malicious web page while logged into the product, unintended operations may be performed on the product.
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 confidenceThis is a clickjacking vulnerability in the web interface of CHOCO TEI WATCHER mini (IB-MCT001). The application fails to properly restrict embedded frames or UI layers, allowing malicious sites to overlay invisible transparent frames atop the legitimate interface. When an authenticated user clicks on seemingly innocent content on the attacker's page, they are actually clicking on hidden actionable elements within the product's web interface, leading to unintended operations.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/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 CHOCO TEI WATCHER mini on the networkScan your network for device IB-MCT001 or check device inventory for Inaba Ib Mct001 Firmware devicesAffected if The device with model IB-MCT001 is present on the network
-
Access the web interface HTTP responseSend an HTTP request to the device's web interface (typically port 80/443) and capture the response headersAffected if The device responds to HTTP requests on its web interface
-
Inspect X-Frame-Options headerExamine the HTTP response headers for 'X-Frame-Options' headerAffected if The header is missing, or is set to 'ALLOW' or any value other than 'DENY' or 'SAMEORIGIN'
-
Inspect Content-Security-Policy headerExamine the HTTP headers for 'Content-Security-Policy' and check for 'frame-ancestors' or 'frame-ancestors' directiveAffected if The CSP header is missing or does not include 'frame-ancestors' directive with restrictive values
-
Test iframe embedding (if safe to do in isolated test)Create a test HTML page with an iframe pointing to the device web interface URL and observe if it loads without being blockedAffected if The web interface successfully loads inside the iframe
If the IB-MCT001 device is present on your network and the web interface lacks X-Frame-Options: DENY/SAMEORIGIN or CSP frame-ancestors in HTTP responses, the environment is vulnerable to clickjacking.
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 X-Frame-Options: DENY or SAMEORIGIN header, or alternatively Content-Security-Policy with frame-ancestors directive, on all responses to prevent the application from being embedded in iframes.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-59479 — 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-2025-59479 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