CVE-2026-25605
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 · uneditedA vulnerability has been identified in SICAM SIAPP SDK (All versions < V2.1.7). The affected application performs file deletion without properly validating the file path or target. An attacker could delete files or sockets that the affected process has permission to remove, potentially resulting in denial of service or service disruption.
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 SICAM SIAPP SDK versions prior to V2.1.7 contain a path traversal vulnerability in file deletion operations. The application performs file deletion without validating the file path or target, allowing an attacker with process-level access to delete arbitrary files or sockets that the process has permission to remove, potentially causing denial of service.
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< 2.17CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 installed SICAM SIAPP SDK versionLocate the SDK installation directory and check the version information in the product metadata, about dialog, or version file typically found in the installation root or release notesAffected if The version shown is less than 2.17 or 2.1.7, indicating an unpatched release
-
Confirm the exact version number formatReview all version documentation or DLL/file properties within the SDK installation to confirm whether the version is expressed as 2.x or V2.xAffected if The version cannot be determined to be 2.17 or higher, treat as potentially affected
-
Determine if the application uses file deletion functionalityReview application code, scripts, or configuration files that invoke the SDK file deletion API or command functionsAffected if The application performs any file deletion operations using the SDK
-
Assess process-level access exposureIdentify processes that run the SDK application and evaluate which users or services have process-level access to those processesAffected if Untrusted users or services have process-level access to the application performing file deletions
-
Check for path traversal protection in file deletion codeIf source code is available, inspect the file deletion routine to verify whether path validation (such as canonicalization checks or allowlist validation) is performed before file deletionAffected if No path validation is implemented before file deletion operations
You are affected if the SICAM SIAPP SDK version is confirmed to be below 2.17 and the application uses file deletion functionality accessible to users with process-level 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.
dbcve · scoped2.17
Upgrade to SICAM SIAPP SDK V2.1.7 or later which contains the patch for this vulnerability. Additionally, implement proper input validation on file paths before deletion operations to prevent path traversal attacks.
Sicam Siapp SDK V2.1.7
- 1. Identify all deployments of SICAM SIAPP SDK in the environment and note their current version numbers.
- 2. Obtain the fixed version V2.1.7 from the official Siemens cert-portal or Siemens customer support/channel.
- 3. Review release notes for V2.1.7 to confirm it addresses the file deletion vulnerability (CVE-2026-25605).
- 4. Test the upgrade in a staging or non-production environment before deploying to production.
- 5. Back up any existing configurations, data, or custom integrations associated with the current SDK installation.
- 6. Uninstall or remove the vulnerable version of SICAM SIAPP SDK.
- 7. Install version V2.1.7 of SICAM SIAPP SDK using the official installation procedure.
- 8. Restore any necessary configurations and verify the SDK functions correctly.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-25605 — 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-2026-25605 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