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-2025-52689 is a critical-severity Session Fixation (CWE-384) vulnerability in Uhg (inferred from references). 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 4% 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-2025-52689 is a session fixation vulnerability, tracked under CWE-384, that affects Alcatel-Lucent OmniAccess Stellar wireless access points. The flaw permits an unauthenticated remote attacker to spoof a login request and obtain a valid administrator session identifier, which can then be used to alter access-point behavior. It carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.8 reflecting network attack vector, low complexity, and no required credentials or user interaction.
An attacker positioned on the network can exploit the issue without authentication to hijack an administrative session and reconfigure the affected access point. Successful exploitation grants full control over device settings and potentially connected clients.
Public advisories from Alcatel-Lucent Enterprise and the Singapore CSA, along with a technical analysis and proof-of-concept code, outline mitigation steps including firmware updates and configuration hardening; the referenced vendor bulletin SA-N0150 specifically addresses this and related issues in the OmniAccess Stellar product line.
EPSS for the CVE has remained flat at 0.0157 since disclosure with no material upward movement.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-21586
Vulnerability Data
Successful exploitation of the vulnerability could allow an unauthenticated attacker to obtain a valid session ID with administrator privileges by spoofing the login request, potentially allowing the attacker to modify the behaviour of the access point.
- 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.