BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2025-65083High confidence

In this scenario (which is outside of the product's design objectives), integrity protection could be bypassed

Tinexta Infocert · GoSign Desktop

3.2LowCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Within 7 days

Low technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2025-197811

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

Low technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Fix not verified
01

What, why and how

GoSign Desktop through 2.4.1 disables TLS certificate validation when configured to use a proxy server. This can be problematic if the GoSign Desktop user selects an arbitrary proxy server without consideration of whether outbound HTTPS connections from the proxy server to Internet servers succeed even for untrusted or invalid server certificates. In this scenario (which is outside of the product's design objectives), integrity protection could be bypassed. In typical cases of a proxy server for outbound HTTPS traffic from an enterprise, those connections would not succeed. (Admittedly, the usual expectation is that a client application is configured to trust an enterprise CA and does not set SSL_VERIFY_NONE.) Also, it is of course unsafe to place ~/.gosign in the home directory of an untrusted user and then have other users execute downloaded files.

What

GoSign Desktop through 2.4.1 disables TLS certificate validation when configured to use a proxy server. This can be problematic if the GoSign Desktop user selects an arbitrary proxy server without consideration of whether outbound HTTPS connections from the proxy server to Internet servers succeed even for untrusted or invalid server certificates. In this scenario (which is outside of the product's design objectives), integrity protection could be bypassed. In typical cases of a proxy server for outbound HTTPS traffic from an enterprise, those connections would not succeed. (Admittedly, the usual expectation is that a client application is configured to trust an enterprise CA and does not set SSL_VERIFY_NONE.) Also, it is of course unsafe to place ~/.gosign in the home directory of an untrusted user and then have other users execute downloaded files.

Why

The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

GoSign Desktop through 2.4.1 disables TLS certificate validation when configured to use a proxy server. This can be problematic if the GoSign Desktop user selects an arbitrary proxy server without consideration of whether outbound HTTPS connections from the proxy server to Internet servers succeed even for untrusted or invalid server certificates. In this scenario (which is outside of the product's design objectives), integrity protection could be bypassed. In typical cases of a proxy server for outbound HTTPS traffic from an enterprise, those connections would not succeed. (Admittedly, the usual expectation is that a client application is configured to trust an enterprise CA and does not set SSL_VERIFY_NONE.) Also, it is of course unsafe to place ~/.gosign in the home directory of an untrusted user and then have other users execute downloaded files.

Why

The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication or user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

02

Exploit reality and attack path

CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.

Observed exploitation
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.

Public PoC / exploit material
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
Reference recorded

CISA Vulnrichment records proof-of-concept exploitation in its SSVC data. BlackTree has not independently executed or validated exploit material.

Likely attack path
local access → Improper Certificate Validation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Local
Privileges required
None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
Security boundary
Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness.
CWE-295 ↗

CWE-295: Improper Certificate Validation. The product does not validate, or incorrectly validates, a certificate.

CVSS vector
?CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity.
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:L/A:N

Common Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.

AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CNoneConfidentiality impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.ILowIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.
Post-exploitation / living off the land
The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
UnauthenticatedCWE-295Public exploit reference
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

BSI · German · WID-SEC-W-2026-0246Lexmark Laser Printers: Mehrere Schwachstellen ermöglichen Ausführen von beliebigem Programmcode mit Benutzerrechten

Ein entfernter, anonymer Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Lexmark Laser Printers ausnutzen, um beliebigen Programmcode mit Benutzerrechten auszuführen.

Official advisory
03

Patch and workaround

Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.

Status
?Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Fix not verified
Affected
≤ 2.4.1
Fixed
No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
Action
No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
Workaround
No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04

Evidence and provenance

Published 17 Nov 2025 · Last source change 17 Nov 2025, 16:11 UTC · CWE-295 · Improper Certificate Validation

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2025-197811
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD not scheduled

Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates →

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
CVE published
ENISA EUVD · EUVD-2025-197811↗CISA Vulnrichment SSVC evidence↗CVE authority or vendor reference↗Official CVE record (CNA and ADP data)↗NVD record↗
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
CVE
Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
CVSS
Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
EPSS
Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
CWE
Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
CNA
CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
CISA ADP
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
NVD
National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
CERT / CSIRT
A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
PoC
Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
CSAF
Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
LoTL
Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2025-65083 · cve.blacktree.nl