CVE-2025-65830
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 · uneditedDue to a lack of certificate validation, all traffic from the mobile application can be intercepted. As a result, an adversary located "upstream" can decrypt the TLS traffic, inspect its contents, and modify the requests in transit. This may result in a total compromise of the user's account if the attacker intercepts a request with active authentication tokens or cracks the MD5 hash sent on login.
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 mobile application fails to validate SSL/TLS certificates, allowing a man-in-the-middle attacker to intercept, decrypt, and modify TLS-encrypted traffic. This enables capture of authentication tokens and MD5 password hashes, leading to full account compromise.
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= 1.1.2.0CVSS 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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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 if Meatmeet app is installedCheck your mobile device for the Meatmeet application in the app drawer or settings > apps listAffected if The Meatmeet app is not found on the device, then this CVE does not apply
-
Verify the installed versionGo to Settings > Apps > Meatmeet > App info or Version info to confirm the exact version number installedAffected if The installed version is exactly 1.1.2.0, indicating the specific affected version
-
Test SSL/TLS certificate validationConfigure a proxy tool (such as Burp Suite, OWASP ZAP, or mitmproxy) on the device network settings and attempt to intercept traffic to the app's server endpointsAffected if The proxy is able to intercept and decrypt traffic without certificate errors, indicating certificate validation is disabled or improperly implemented
You are affected if the Meatmeet app version 1.1.2.0 is installed and a proxy can intercept traffic without certificate warnings, confirming the SSL/TLS validation flaw is present.
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 proper certificate validation using certificate pinning or robust CA chain validation to ensure the app only trusts legitimate server certificates.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-65830 — 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-2025-65830 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