CVE-2025-55292
Meshtastic Firmware ≤ 2.7.6
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-55292 is a high-severity Use of Less Trusted Source (CWE-348) vulnerability in Meshtastic Meshtastic Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Path Interception (T1034); ranked at the 3th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) and IA-3 (Device Identification and Authentication) — 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-2025-55292 is a vulnerability in Meshtastic, an open source mesh networking solution. In the affected versions of Meshtastic firmware prior to 2.7.6.834c3c5, nodes are identified by a NodeID derived from the MAC address rather than their public key. This design flaw enables attackers to abuse the unencrypted HAM mode by forging a NodeInfo packet on behalf of a victim node, falsely advertising that HAM mode is enabled. Consequently, other nodes on the mesh accept this forged information, overwriting entries in their NodeDB.
An attacker with network access to the mesh can exploit this vulnerability without privileges. By forging and broadcasting a NodeInfo for the victim node claiming HAM mode activation, the attacker causes other nodes to update their NodeDB accordingly. This forces direct messages to the victim to use the shared channel key instead of public key cryptography (PKC), compromising confidentiality. Additionally, due to HAM mode's lack of authentication, the attacker can alter the victim's node details, such as full name or short code. The attack persists by regularly resending the forged NodeInfo, particularly after the victim broadcasts its legitimate one.
The Meshtastic firmware patch in version 2.7.6.834c3c5 addresses this issue, as detailed in the project's GitHub commit (e5e8683cdba133e726033101586c3235a8678893) and security advisory (GHSA-45vg-3f35-7ch2). Security practitioners should update to this version or later to mitigate the risk.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206503
Vulnerability Data
Meshtastic is an open source mesh networking solution. In the current Meshtastic architecture, a Node is identified by their NodeID, generated from the MAC address, rather than their public key. This aspect downgrades the security, specifically by abusing the HAM…
more
mode which doesn't use encryption. An attacker can, as such, forge a NodeInfo on behalf of a victim node advertising that the HAM mode is enabled. This, in turn, will allow the other nodes on the mesh to accept the new information and overwriting the NodeDB. The other nodes will then only be able to send direct messages to the victim by using the shared channel key instead of the PKC. Additionally, because HAM mode by design doesn't provide any confidentiality or authentication of information, the attacker could potentially also be able to change the Node details, like the full name, short code, etc. To keep the attack persistent, it is enough to regularly resend the forged NodeInfo, in particular right after the victim sends their own. A patch is available in version 2.7.6.834c3c5.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 7 hardening rules · 4 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Provenance tracking supplies the information needed to distinguish and prefer more-trusted sources, reducing the chance that a weaker source is chosen.
Information flow enforcement can require that data or decisions are taken only from explicitly approved, higher-trust sources rather than less-verified ones.
Device identification and authentication forces verification of the source before any data it supplies is used, eliminating reliance on unauthenticated inputs.
Boundary protection monitors and filters traffic at external interfaces, structurally limiting the ability to accept data from less-trusted external sources.
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.
Explicit authenticity/integrity checks before use directly reduce selection of a less-trusted source.
Correlating multiple sources can surface discrepancies that discourage reliance on the less-trusted one.
Protecting data-in-transit integrity helps ensure the more-trusted source is the one whose data is accepted.
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.
Secure architecture principles include trusted input channels and source verification mechanisms.
Security testing can detect and prevent acceptance of data from less-trusted sources during development.
Network security controls can enforce trusted data paths and source validation, reducing reliance on unverified inputs.
Secure network services include source validation and integrity checks that help prevent acceptance of data from less-trusted origins.
Application security requirements can mandate trusted data sources and input validation, directly addressing the weakness.
Secure coding practices can enforce checks that prefer or validate the more trusted data source.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248575 OL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-348
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271525 OL 9 must have GPG signature verification enabled for all software repositories. prevents CWE-348
RHEL 7 (1 rule)
- V-204447 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components from a repository without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-348