CVE-2025-7020
12h42 +00:00
Mô tả CVE
BYD DiLink OS Incorrect encryption Implementation of system log dumps
An incorrect encryption implementation vulnerability exists in the system log dump feature of BYD's DiLink 3.0 OS (e.g. in the model ATTO3). An attacker with physical access to the vehicle can bypass the encryption of log dumps on the In-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) unit's storage. This allows the attacker to access and read system logs containing sensitive data, including personally identifiable information (PII) and location data. This vulnerability was introduced in a patch intended to fix CVE-2024-54728.Giải pháp CVE
Thông tin CVE
Điểm yếu liên quan
| Tên điểm yếu | Nguồn | |
|---|---|---|
| Reliance on Security Through Obscurity The product uses a protection mechanism whose strength depends heavily on its obscurity, such that knowledge of its algorithms or key data is sufficient to defeat the mechanism. |
Số liệu
| Số liệu | Điểm | Mức độ nghiêm trọng | CVSS Vector | Nguồn |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| V4.0 | 5.1 | MEDIUM |
CVSS:4.0/AV:P/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:L/SI:N/SA:N/AU:Y/V:D/RE:H
Thêm thông tin
Base: Exploitabilty MetricsThe 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. Physical The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable system. Physical interaction may be brief (e.g., evil maid attack1) or persistent. An example of such an attack is a cold boot attack in which an attacker gains access to disk encryption keys after physically accessing the target system. Other examples include peripheral attacks via FireWire/USB Direct Memory Access (DMA). 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. None The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability. 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 MetricsThe 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. High There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all information within the Vulnerable System being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server. Integrity Impact This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. None There is no loss of integrity within 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 Low There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Subsequent 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 MetricsThe Threat metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability for a vulnerability. Environmental MetricsThese 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 MetricsSupplemental 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. Yes Attackers can reliably automate all 4 steps of the kill chain. These steps are reconnaissance, weaponization, delivery, and exploitation (e.g., the vulnerability is “wormable”). Value Density Value Density describes the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event. It has two possible values, diffuse and concentrated: Diffuse The vulnerable system has limited resources. That is, the resources that the attacker will gain control over with a single exploitation event are relatively small. An example of Diffuse (think: limited) Value Density would be an attack on a single email client vulnerability. 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. High The actions required to respond to a vulnerability are significant and/or difficult, and may possibly lead to an extended, scheduled service impact. This would need to be considered for scheduling purposes including honoring any embargo on deployment of the selected response. Alternatively, response to the vulnerability in the field is not possible remotely. The only resolution to the vulnerability involves physical replacement (e.g. units deployed would have to be recalled for a depot level repair or replacement). Examples include: a highly privileged driver update, microcode or UEFI BIOS updates, or software upgrades requiring careful analysis and understanding of any potential infrastructure impact before implementation. A UEFI BIOS update that impacts Trusted Platform Module (TPM) attestation without impacting disk encryption software such as Bit locker is a good recent example. Irreparable failures such as non-bootable flash subsystems, failed disks or solid-state drives (SSD), bad memory modules, network devices, or other non-recoverable under warranty hardware, should also be scored as having a High effort. |
