CVE-2025-62765
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 · uneditedGeneral Industrial Controls Lynx+ Gateway is vulnerable to a cleartext transmission vulnerability that could allow an attacker to observe network traffic to obtain sensitive information, including plaintext credentials.
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 General Industrial Controls Lynx+ Gateway transmits sensitive authentication credentials in cleartext over the network, allowing an attacker with visibility into network traffic to intercept and obtain plaintext passwords through passive traffic analysis.
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
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify Lynx+ Gateway in your environmentReview network inventory or scan for devices matching 'Lynx+ Gateway' or 'General Industrial Controls' product signaturesAffected if A General Industrial Controls Lynx+ Gateway device is present on the network
-
Capture outbound network traffic from the deviceUse a packet capture tool (such as tcpdump, Wireshark, or a network tap) to capture traffic leaving the Lynx+ Gateway on ports used for authentication (typically HTTP, Modbus, or proprietary industrial protocols)Affected if Traffic capture is possible and the device communicates over the network
-
Analyze captured traffic for plaintext credentialsSearch the captured packets for readable password strings or authentication tokens in the payload sections. Inspect HTTP POST/GET requests, Modbus registers, or any protocol-specific authentication messagesAffected if Plaintext passwords or authentication credentials appear in the packet payloads
-
Verify if unencrypted protocols are enabledCheck the device configuration or documentation for enabled protocols. Look for settings related to protocol security (HTTP vs HTTPS, TLS enablement, encrypted communications settings)Affected if Unencrypted protocols (HTTP, non-TLS Modbus, cleartext industrial protocols) are enabled or TLS/SSL encryption is disabled
-
Confirm network exposure of authentication trafficDetermine whether authentication traffic traverses network segments visible to unauthorized parties or passes through untrusted network infrastructure without VPN or tunnel protectionAffected if Authentication traffic is transmitted across unencrypted or untrusted network segments
You are affected if a Lynx+ Gateway is present and authentication credentials are transmitted in cleartext on the network without encryption or VPN protection.
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 dataEnable encrypted communication protocols (TLS/SSL) for all network communications, implement VPN tunnels for remote access, and ensure proper network segmentation to limit exposure of unencrypted traffic.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation10.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,392.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-62765 — 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-2025-62765 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