CVE-2025-4384 : Détail

CVE-2025-4384

6
/
Moyen
0.21%V4
Adjacent
2025-05-06
15h59 +00:00
2025-09-05
16h38 +00:00
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

Certificate validity not properly verified

The MQTT add-on of PcVue fails to verify that a remote device’s certificate has not already expired or has not yet become valid. This allows malicious devices to present certificates that are not rejected properly. The use of a client certificate reduces the risk for random devices to take advantage of this flaw.

Solutions du CVE

Harden the configuration Who should apply this recommendation: All users The system operators are highly recommended to take defensive measures to minimize the risk of exploitation of this vulnerability. Specifically, users should: * Use client certificate when configuring the MQTT add-on. * Minimize network exposure for all control system devices and/or systems, and ensure they are not accessible from the Internet unless required. * Locate control system networks and remote devices behind firewalls and isolate them from business networks. * When remote access is required, use secure methods, such as Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), recognizing VPNs may have vulnerabilities and should be updated to the most current version available. Also recognize VPN is only as secure as its connected devices. Update PcVue Who should apply this recommendation: All users using the affected component Apply the patch by installing a fixed PcVue version. Available patches: Fixed in: * PcVue 16.2.5 and PcVue 16.3.0 * PcVue 15.2.12

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-298 Improper Validation of Certificate Expiration
A certificate expiration is not validated or is incorrectly validated.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V4.0 6 MEDIUM CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/AU:N/R:U/RE:M/U:Green

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the “thing that is vulnerable”, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable system.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Adjacent

The vulnerable system is bound to a protocol stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared proximity (e.g., Bluetooth, NFC, or IEEE 802.11) or logical network (e.g., local IP subnet), or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN within an administrative network zone).

Attack Complexity

This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit.

Low

The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.

Attack Requirements

This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack.

Present

The successful attack depends on the presence of specific deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These include: A race condition must be won to successfully exploit the vulnerability. The successfulness of the attack is conditioned on execution conditions that are not under full control of the attacker. The attack may need to be launched multiple times against a single target before being successful. Network injection. The attacker must inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim (e.g. vulnerabilities requiring an on-path attacker).

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

None

The attacker is unauthenticated prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker. Examples include: a remote attacker is able to send packets to a target system a locally authenticated attacker executes code to elevate privileges

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the system due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the Vulnerable System. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted system resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

None

There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.

Sub Confidentiality Impact

Negligible

There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Integrity Impact

None

There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Sub Availability Impact

None

There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Threat Metrics

The Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the consumer analyst to customize the resulting score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of complementary/alternative security controls in place, Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability. The metrics are the modified equivalent of Base metrics and are assigned values based on the system placement within organizational infrastructure.

Supplemental Metrics

Supplemental metric group provides new metrics that describe and measure additional extrinsic attributes of a vulnerability. While the assessment of Supplemental metrics is provisioned by the provider, the usage and response plan of each metric within the Supplemental metric group is determined by the consumer.

Automatable

The “Automatable” metric captures the answer to the question ”Can an attacker automate exploitation events for this vulnerability across multiple targets?” based on steps 1-4 of the kill chain2 [Hutchins et al., 2011]. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation. If evaluated, the metric can take the values no or yes.

No

Attackers cannot reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain for this vulnerability for some reason. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation.

Recovery

Recovery describes the resilience of a system to recover services, in terms of performance and availability, after an attack has been performed.

User

The system requires manual intervention by the user to recover services, after an attack has been performed.

Vulnerability Response Effort

The intention of the Vulnerability Response Effort metric is to provide supplemental information on how difficult it is for consumers to provide an initial response to the impact of vulnerabilities for deployed products and services in their infrastructure.

Moderate

The actions required to respond to a vulnerability require some effort on behalf of the consumer and could cause minimal service impact to implement. Examples include: simple remote update, disabling of a subsystem, or a low-touch software upgrade such as a driver update.

Provider Urgency

Many vendors currently provide supplemental severity ratings to consumers via product security advisories.

Green

Provider has assessed the impact of this vulnerability as having a reduced urgency.

EPSS

EPSS est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

Score EPSS

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Percentile EPSS

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.

Références