Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-13940

Watchguard Fireware 2025.1 – 2025.1.3

Published
04 December 2025
Modified
10 August 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 6.7
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
EPSS Score 0.0012 2th percentile
Risk Priority 22 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-13940 is a medium-severity Expected Behavior Violation (CWE-440) vulnerability in Watchguard Fireware. Its CVSS base score is 6.7 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 2th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-6 (Security and Privacy Function Verification) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

An Expected Behavior Violation [CWE-440] vulnerability in WatchGuard Fireware OS may allow an attacker to bypass the Fireware OS boot time system integrity check and prevent the Firebox from shutting down in the event of a system integrity check failure.…

more

The on-demand system integrity check in the Fireware Web UI will correctly show a failed system integrity check message in the event of a failure.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-3344Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270
CVE-2025-11838Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270
CVE-2025-13939Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270
CVE-2025-13938Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270
CVE-2025-1545Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270
CVE-2025-12195Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270
CVE-2025-13936Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270
CVE-2025-13937Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270
CVE-2025-12026Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270
CVE-2025-12196Same product: Watchguard Firebox M270

Affected Assets

watchguard
fireware
2025.1 — 2025.1.3 · 12.8.1 — 12.11.5

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation directly checks whether implemented functions match their specifications.

Security function verification confirms that functions operate according to their defined expected behavior.

Requiring a documented security architecture and design reduces the chance that implementation deviates from intended behavior.

Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

PR.PS-06 full match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly enforce specification compliance and catch expected-behavior violations during development.

ID.IM-02 partial match
prevents

Security testing and exercises help discover behavior deviations before deployment.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability identification can surface spec-violating flaws, while eliminating the weakness reduces some vulnerability backlog.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Routine software maintenance and patching can remediate discovered specification violations.

Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI

Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.

finds

Security testing in development and acceptance validates that functions behave as specified.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates verification against specifications, directly reducing expected-behavior violations.

prevents

Application security requirements explicitly define expected behavior that must be met.

prevents

Secure coding practices enforce adherence to functional specifications during implementation.

finds

Change management can catch specification deviations introduced by modifications.

none

Documented operating procedures reduce the chance that functions deviate from intended behavior.

References