Improper Certificate ValidationWeakness · CWE-295

CVE-2025-8393

HIGH · 7.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-08-08
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
76/100
Remediation priority · High
No privileges

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 · unedited
A TLS vulnerability exists in the phone application used to manage a connected device. The phone application accepts self-signed certificates when establishing TLS communication which may result in man-in-the-middle attacks on untrusted networks. Captured communications may include user credentials and sensitive session tokens.

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 confidence

The phone application used to manage a connected device fails to properly validate TLS certificates, accepting self-signed certificates during TLS handshakes. This allows an attacker on the same network to perform a man-in-the-middle attack, intercepting and decrypting encrypted communications that may contain user credentials and session tokens.

MitigationImplement proper TLS certificate chain validation and consider certificate pinning to reject self-signed or untrusted certificates. Users should avoid connecting to the application over untrusted networks until the fix is deployed.

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
Adjacent
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the phone application managing the connected device
    Locate the mobile application on your device used to manage the connected device. Note its name and installed version from your device settings or app store listing.
    Affected if The application in use matches the affected product and version range for this CVE.
  2. Verify TLS certificate validation behavior
    On a controlled test network, configure a proxy with a self-signed certificate and attempt to intercept HTTPS traffic from the phone application. Observe whether the application completes the TLS handshake without rejecting the untrusted certificate.
    Affected if The application accepts the self-signed certificate and establishes a connection, indicating improper certificate validation.
  3. Inspect network security configuration
    For Android devices, check if the app has a network_security_config.xml allowing cleartext traffic or disabling certificate validation. For iOS, check Info.plist for NSAllowsArbitraryLoads or similar settings that disable TLS validation.
    Affected if The application is configured to bypass or disable proper TLS certificate validation.
  4. Confirm vulnerability through traffic inspection
    Use a man-in-the-middle setup with a self-signed certificate on the same network. If the application transmits credentials or session tokens that are readable by the proxy, certificate validation is not properly enforced.
    Affected if Encrypted traffic is readable by an untrusted intercepting certificate, exposing sensitive data.

Your environment is affected if the phone application accepts self-signed certificates during TLS handshakes, allowing an attacker on the same network to intercept credentials and session tokens.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Implement proper TLS certificate chain validation and consider certificate pinning to reject self-signed or untrusted certificates. Users should avoid connecting to the application over untrusted networks until the fix is deployed.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
14.0 hours of engineering $2,490
Get help mitigating

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 locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-8393 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-8393 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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