Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-28242 is a critical-severity Session Fixation (CWE-384) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Steal Web Session Cookie (T1539); ranked in the top 23% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-23 (Session Authenticity) and AC-12 (Session Termination) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-28242 is an improper session management flaw in the /login_ok.htm endpoint of DAEnetIP4 METO version 1.25. The issue is tracked under CWE-384 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 9.8, reflecting network-accessible exploitation with no required credentials or user interaction that can result in complete confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can hijack active sessions by abusing the endpoint, allowing them to impersonate legitimate users and obtain full administrative control over the affected device.
The two supplied references point to the same public GitHub repository containing the researcher's technical notes; neither the references nor the CVE record describe vendor patches, workarounds, or official mitigation guidance.
EPSS for the vulnerability rose from a low baseline to a peak of 0.1626 on 2026-02-12 before receding to the current value of 0.0566, indicating a clear increase in exploitation interest after disclosure.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-11885
Vulnerability Data
Improper session management in the /login_ok.htm endpoint of DAEnetIP4 METO v1.25 allows attackers to execute a session hijacking attack.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V4.4.4V7.6.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Requires protection of session authenticity, which directly stops an attacker from using a stolen or fixed session identifier after authentication.
Limits the lifetime of any session (fixed or not), thereby reducing the window during which a stolen identifier remains usable.
Enforces that only properly authorized (i.e., freshly authenticated) sessions can access resources, making a pre-existing fixed session ID unusable.
Forces re-authentication under defined conditions, which should result in issuance of a fresh session identifier and invalidation of any prior one.
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.
Proper authentication processes must invalidate prior session identifiers to prevent fixation attacks.
Managing identities and credentials includes handling session identifiers as temporary credentials that must be invalidated on re-authentication.
Protecting and verifying identity assertions encompasses secure handling and regeneration of session tokens.
Configuration baselines can enforce session regeneration and timeout settings that block fixation.
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.
Security testing can detect session-fixation issues, yet the weakness absence does not replace comprehensive testing.
Access-control policy can mandate session invalidation on re-authentication, but does not prescribe the technical mechanism.
Identity-management procedures can require new session tokens after login, yet the control is broader than session handling.
Authentication-information rules can include session-token lifecycle requirements, but the control focuses on credential management.
Secure-SDLC requirement can embed session-fixation checks, but eliminating the weakness does not satisfy the full SDLC control.
Application-security requirements can specify session handling, yet the weakness fix alone does not meet the broader requirement.