CVE-2025-67135
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 · uneditedWeak Security in the PF-50 1.2 keyfob of PGST PG107 Alarm System 1.25.05.hf allows attackers to compromise access control via a code replay 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 · moderate confidenceThe PF-50 1.2 keyfob in the PGST PG107 Alarm System uses static access codes that can be captured and replayed by attackers, allowing unauthorized access control bypass. This is a classic replay attack where the lack of rolling code or challenge-response authentication enables complete compromise of the wireless access mechanism.
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
- 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 alarm system modelLocate the product model number on the alarm system main unit or keyfob packaging. Confirm it is PGST PG107 with PF-50 1.2 keyfob.Affected if The model is PGST PG107 with PF-50 1.2 keyfob.
-
Determine the authentication mechanismConsult the product documentation or contact PGST support to verify whether the keyfob implements rolling code or challenge-response authentication. Check the wireless protocol specification in the system settings if accessible.Affected if The keyfob uses fixed/static codes with no rolling code or challenge-response mechanism.
-
Inspect wireless signal transmissionUse a software-defined radio (SDR) or RF sniffing device to capture keyfob transmissions. Analyze whether the same code is transmitted on every button press or if the code changes.Affected if The same code is transmitted repeatedly across multiple button presses (static code).
-
Verify firmware versionAccess the alarm system configuration interface or check for firmware update options in the associated mobile app or control panel. Note the installed firmware version.Affected if Firmware is outdated or does not contain replay protection updates.
-
Check for replay attack exposureCapture a valid keyfob transmission and attempt to replay it using RF transmitting hardware. Observe whether the system responds to the replayed signal.Affected if The system accepts and acts upon replayed captured codes.
A user is affected if they use the PGST PG107 alarm system with PF-50 1.2 keyfob and the keyfob transmits static codes without rolling code or challenge-response authentication, allowing captured signals to be replayed for unauthorized access.
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 rolling code (hopping code) technology or challenge-response authentication in the keyfob firmware, or replace vulnerable keyfobs with updated hardware that supports secure rolling codes.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-67135 — 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-2025-67135 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