Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-40555

Published
13 May 2025
Modified
17 June 2026
CVSS Score v4 5.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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 0.0019 9th percentile
Risk Priority 31 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-40555 is a medium-severity Expected Behavior Violation (CWE-440) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 9th 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

A vulnerability has been identified in APOGEE PXC+TALON TC Series (BACnet) (All versions). Affected devices start sending unsolicited BACnet broadcast messages after processing a specific BACnet createObject request. This could allow an attacker residing in the same BACnet network to…

more

send a specially crafted message that results in a partial denial of service condition of the targeted device, and potentially reduce the availability of BACnet network. A power cycle is required to restore the device's normal operation.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-46712Shared CWE-440
CVE-2024-7246Shared CWE-440
CVE-2025-27094Shared CWE-440
CVE-2026-8806Shared CWE-440
CVE-2026-42752Shared CWE-440
CVE-2025-52953Shared CWE-440
CVE-2023-32732Shared CWE-440
CVE-2025-32728Shared CWE-440
CVE-2025-13940Shared CWE-440
CVE-2026-3344Shared CWE-440

Affected Assets

All
inferred from references and description; NVD did not file a CPE for this CVE

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