CVE-2025-40818 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-40818
Vulnerability Scoring

3.3
/10
Moderate Risk

Exploiting CVE-2025-40818 requires specific conditions, leading to a moderate security impact.

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity: Low
    Exploits can be performed without significant complexity or special conditions.
  • Attack Vector: Local
    Vulnerability requires local system access.
  • Privileges Required: Low
    Some privileges are necessary to exploit the vulnerability.
  • Scope: Unchanged
    Exploit remains within the originally vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-40818 Details

Status: Analyzed

Last updated: 🕤 10 Dec 2025, 21:42 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 09 Dec 2025, 16:17 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1 days

CVSS Release: version 3

CVSS3 Source

productcert@siemens.com

CVSS3 Type

Primary

CVSS3 Vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

CVE-2025-40818 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-40818: A vulnerability has been identified in SINEMA Remote Connect Server (All versions < V3.2 SP4). Affected applications contain private SSL/TLS keys on the server that are not properly protected allowing any user with server access to read these keys. This could allow an authenticated attacker to impersonate the server potentially enabling man-in-the-middle, traffic decryption or unauthorized access to services that trust these certificates.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-40818

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-40818 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-40818

CVE-2025-40818 presents an accessible attack vector with minimal effort required. Restricting access controls and implementing security updates are critical to reducing exploitation risks.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-40818, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-40818, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: Low
    CVE-2025-40818 could lead to minor leaks of non-critical information without major privacy breaches.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-40818 poses no threat to data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-40818 does not impact system availability.

CVE-2025-40818 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-732

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs CAPEC-1 In applications, particularly web applications, access to functionality is mitigated by an authorization framework. This framework maps Access Control Lists (ACLs) to elements of the application's functionality; particularly URL's for web apps. In the case that the administrator failed to specify an ACL for a particular element, an attacker may be able to access it with impunity. An attacker with the ability to access functionality not properly constrained by ACLs can obtain sensitive information and possibly compromise the entire application. Such an attacker can access resources that must be available only to users at a higher privilege level, can access management sections of the application, or can run queries for data that they otherwise not supposed to.
  • Privilege Abuse CAPEC-122 An adversary is able to exploit features of the target that should be reserved for privileged users or administrators but are exposed to use by lower or non-privileged accounts. Access to sensitive information and functionality must be controlled to ensure that only authorized users are able to access these resources.
  • Directory Indexing CAPEC-127 An adversary crafts a request to a target that results in the target listing/indexing the content of a directory as output. One common method of triggering directory contents as output is to construct a request containing a path that terminates in a directory name rather than a file name since many applications are configured to provide a list of the directory's contents when such a request is received. An adversary can use this to explore the directory tree on a target as well as learn the names of files. This can often end up revealing test files, backup files, temporary files, hidden files, configuration files, user accounts, script contents, as well as naming conventions, all of which can be used by an attacker to mount additional attacks.
  • Using Malicious Files CAPEC-17 An attack of this type exploits a system's configuration that allows an adversary to either directly access an executable file, for example through shell access; or in a possible worst case allows an adversary to upload a file and then execute it. Web servers, ftp servers, and message oriented middleware systems which have many integration points are particularly vulnerable, because both the programmers and the administrators must be in synch regarding the interfaces and the correct privileges for each interface.
  • Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels CAPEC-180 An attacker exploits a weakness in the configuration of access controls and is able to bypass the intended protection that these measures guard against and thereby obtain unauthorized access to the system or network. Sensitive functionality should always be protected with access controls. However configuring all but the most trivial access control systems can be very complicated and there are many opportunities for mistakes. If an attacker can learn of incorrectly configured access security settings, they may be able to exploit this in an attack.
  • Signing Malicious Code CAPEC-206 The adversary extracts credentials used for code signing from a production environment and then uses these credentials to sign malicious content with the developer's key. Many developers use signing keys to sign code or hashes of code. When users or applications verify the signatures are accurate they are led to believe that the code came from the owner of the signing key and that the code has not been modified since the signature was applied. If the adversary has extracted the signing credentials then they can use those credentials to sign their own code bundles. Users or tools that verify the signatures attached to the code will likely assume the code came from the legitimate developer and install or run the code, effectively allowing the adversary to execute arbitrary code on the victim's computer. This differs from CAPEC-673, because the adversary is performing the code signing.
  • Hijacking a privileged process CAPEC-234 An adversary gains control of a process that is assigned elevated privileges in order to execute arbitrary code with those privileges. Some processes are assigned elevated privileges on an operating system, usually through association with a particular user, group, or role. If an attacker can hijack this process, they will be able to assume its level of privilege in order to execute their own code.
  • Reusing Session IDs (aka Session Replay) CAPEC-60 This attack targets the reuse of valid session ID to spoof the target system in order to gain privileges. The attacker tries to reuse a stolen session ID used previously during a transaction to perform spoofing and session hijacking. Another name for this type of attack is Session Replay.
  • Session Fixation CAPEC-61 The attacker induces a client to establish a session with the target software using a session identifier provided by the attacker. Once the user successfully authenticates to the target software, the attacker uses the (now privileged) session identifier in their own transactions. This attack leverages the fact that the target software either relies on client-generated session identifiers or maintains the same session identifiers after privilege elevation.
  • Cross Site Request Forgery CAPEC-62 An attacker crafts malicious web links and distributes them (via web pages, email, etc.), typically in a targeted manner, hoping to induce users to click on the link and execute the malicious action against some third-party application. If successful, the action embedded in the malicious link will be processed and accepted by the targeted application with the users' privilege level. This type of attack leverages the persistence and implicit trust placed in user session cookies by many web applications today. In such an architecture, once the user authenticates to an application and a session cookie is created on the user's system, all following transactions for that session are authenticated using that cookie including potential actions initiated by an attacker and simply "riding" the existing session cookie.
  • Replace Binaries CAPEC-642 Adversaries know that certain binaries will be regularly executed as part of normal processing. If these binaries are not protected with the appropriate file system permissions, it could be possible to replace them with malware. This malware might be executed at higher system permission levels. A variation of this pattern is to discover self-extracting installation packages that unpack binaries to directories with weak file permissions which it does not clean up appropriately. These binaries can be replaced by malware, which can then be executed.

Vulnerable Configurations

  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:1.0:sp3_hf1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:1.0:sp3_hf1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:1.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:1.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:1.2:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:1.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:1.3:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:2.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:2.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:2.0:hf1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:2.0:hf1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.0:sp1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.0:sp1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.1:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.2:sp1:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.2:sp1:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.2:sp2:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.2:sp2:*:*:*:*:*:*
  • cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.2:sp3:*:*:*:*:*:*
    cpe:2.3:a:siemens:sinema_remote_connect_server:3.2:sp3:*:*:*:*:*:*

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-40818: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-15165 – A vulnerability has been found in itsourcecode Online Cake Ordering System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /updatecust...
  • CVE-2025-15164 – A security flaw has been discovered in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. This affects an unknown part of the file /goform/SafeMacFilter. The manipulation of th...
  • CVE-2025-15163 – A vulnerability was identified in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /goform/SafeEmailFilter. T...
  • CVE-2025-15067 – Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type vulnerability in Innorix Innorix WP allows Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server.This issue affects In...
  • CVE-2025-15066 – Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal'), Missing Authorization vulnerability in Innorix WP allows Path Trave...