CVE-2025-49730 : Détail

CVE-2025-49730

7.8
/
Haute
1.15%V4
Local
2025-07-08
16h58 +00:00
2025-08-23
00h40 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

Microsoft Windows QoS Scheduler Driver Elevation of Privilege Vulnerability

Time-of-check time-of-use (toctou) race condition in Microsoft Windows QoS scheduler allows an authorized attacker to elevate privileges locally.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-367 Time-of-check Time-of-use (TOCTOU) Race Condition
The product checks the state of a resource before using that resource, but the resource's state can change between the check and the use in a way that invalidates the results of the check.
CWE-122 Heap-based Buffer Overflow
A heap overflow condition is a buffer overflow, where the buffer that can be overwritten is allocated in the heap portion of memory, generally meaning that the buffer was allocated using a routine such as malloc().

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:U/RL:O/RC:C

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Exploit Code Maturity

This metric measures the likelihood of the vulnerability being attacked, and is typically based on the current state of exploit techniques, exploit code availability, or active, “in-the-wild” exploitation.

Unproven

No exploit code is available, or an exploit is theoretical.

Remediation Level

The Remediation Level of a vulnerability is an important factor for prioritization.

Official fix

A complete vendor solution is available. Either the vendor has issued an official patch, or an upgrade is available.

Report Confidence

This metric measures the degree of confidence in the existence of the vulnerability and the credibility of the known technical details.

Confirmed

Detailed reports exist, or functional reproduction is possible (functional exploits may provide this). Source code is available to independently verify the assertions of the research, or the author or vendor of the affected code has confirmed the presence of the vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.
V3.1 7.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Base: Exploitabilty Metrics

The Exploitability metrics reflect the characteristics of the thing that is vulnerable, which we refer to formally as the vulnerable component.

Attack Vector

This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible.

Local

The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities.

Attack Complexity

This metric describes the conditions beyond the attacker’s control that must exist in order to exploit the vulnerability.

Low

Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success when attacking the vulnerable component.

Privileges Required

This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess before successfully exploiting the vulnerability.

Low

The attacker requires privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.

User Interaction

This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable component.

None

The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any user.

Base: Scope Metrics

The Scope metric captures whether a vulnerability in one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.

Scope

Formally, a security authority is a mechanism (e.g., an application, an operating system, firmware, a sandbox environment) that defines and enforces access control in terms of how certain subjects/actors (e.g., human users, processes) can access certain restricted objects/resources (e.g., files, CPU, memory) in a controlled manner. All the subjects and objects under the jurisdiction of a single security authority are considered to be under one security scope. If a vulnerability in a vulnerable component can affect a component which is in a different security scope than the vulnerable component, a Scope change occurs. Intuitively, whenever the impact of a vulnerability breaches a security/trust boundary and impacts components outside the security scope in which vulnerable component resides, a Scope change occurs.

Unchanged

An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.

Base: Impact Metrics

The Impact metrics capture the effects of a successfully exploited vulnerability on the component that suffers the worst outcome that is most directly and predictably associated with the attack. Analysts should constrain impacts to a reasonable, final outcome which they are confident an attacker is able to achieve.

Confidentiality Impact

This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information resources managed by a software component due to a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact. For example, an attacker steals the administrator's password, or private encryption keys of a web server.

Integrity Impact

This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information.

High

There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Availability Impact

This metric measures the impact to the availability of the impacted component resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability.

High

There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Temporal Metrics

The Temporal metrics measure the current state of exploit techniques or code availability, the existence of any patches or workarounds, or the confidence in the description of a vulnerability.

Environmental Metrics

These metrics enable the analyst to customize the CVSS score depending on the importance of the affected IT asset to a user’s organization, measured in terms of Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability.

 secure@microsoft.com

EPSS

EPSS est un modèle de notation qui prédit la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée.

Score EPSS

Le modèle EPSS produit un score de probabilité compris entre 0 et 1 (0 et 100 %). Plus la note est élevée, plus la probabilité qu'une vulnérabilité soit exploitée est grande.

Percentile EPSS

Le percentile est utilisé pour classer les CVE en fonction de leur score EPSS. Par exemple, une CVE dans le 95e percentile selon son score EPSS est plus susceptible d'être exploitée que 95 % des autres CVE. Ainsi, le percentile sert à comparer le score EPSS d'une CVE par rapport à d'autres CVE.
EPSS First.org

Informations sur l'Exploit

Exploit Database EDB-ID : 52399

Date de publication : 2025-08-10 22h00 +00:00
Auteur : nu11secur1ty
EDB Vérifié : No

# Titles: Microsoft Windows - Storage QoS Filter Driver Checker # Author: nu11secur1ty # Date: 08/04/2025 # Vendor: Microsoft # Software: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11 # Reference: https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-49730 ## Description This PowerShell script checks if your Windows system is vulnerable to **CVE-2025-49730**, a critical vulnerability in the `storqosflt.sys` Storage QoS Filter Driver. ## Features - Detects if the `storqosflt` driver is present. - Retrieves the driver version and compares it against the known patched version (`10.0.26100.1`). - Verifies the driver's digital signature to ensure authenticity. - Calculates the SHA-256 hash of the driver file for integrity verification. - Retrieves recent system event logs related to `storqosflt` to identify suspicious or unusual activity. ## Usage 1. Open PowerShell with Administrator privileges. 2. Run the script: ```powershell .\Check-StorQoS-CVE2025.ps1 ``` 3. Review the output: - **Red messages** indicate vulnerable or suspicious conditions (e.g., vulnerable driver version or invalid digital signature). - **Yellow messages** indicate warnings or missing data. - **Green messages** indicate good or safe status. ## Requirements - Windows PowerShell (tested on Windows 10 and 11). - Execution policy set to allow running local scripts (`Set-ExecutionPolicy RemoteSigned` may be needed). - Administrator privileges recommended for full access to driver info and logs. ## Disclaimer This script **does not** attempt to exploit the vulnerability. It only checks system status to **prove** vulnerability presence or absence based on driver version, signature, and logs. ## Contact For questions or improvements, please open an issue or contact the author. # Source: [href]( https://github.com/nu11secur1ty/Windows11Exploits/tree/main/2025/CVE-2025-49730 ) # Buy me a coffee if you are not ashamed: [href](https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=ZPQZT5XMC5RFY) # Source download [href]( https://nu11secur1ty.github.io/DownGit/#/home?url=https://github.com/nu11secur1ty/Windows11Exploits/tree/main/2025/CVE-2025-49730 ) # Time spent: 01:35:00 -- System Administrator - Infrastructure Engineer Penetration Testing Engineer Exploit developer at https://packetstormsecurity.com/ https://cve.mitre.org/index.html https://cxsecurity.com/ and https://www.exploit-db.com/ 0day Exploit DataBase https://0day.today/ home page: https://www.nu11secur1ty.com/ hiPEnIMR0v7QCo/+SEH9gBclAAYWGnPoBIQ75sCj60E= nu11secur1ty <http://nu11secur1ty.com/> -- System Administrator - Infrastructure Engineer Penetration Testing Engineer Exploit developer at https://packetstorm.news/ https://cve.mitre.org/index.html https://cxsecurity.com/ and https://www.exploit-db.com/ 0day Exploit DataBase https://0day.today/ home page: https://www.nu11secur1ty.com/ hiPEnIMR0v7QCo/+SEH9gBclAAYWGnPoBIQ75sCj60E= nu11secur1ty <http://nu11secur1ty.com/>
Exploit Database EDB-ID : 52403

Date de publication : 2025-08-10 22h00 +00:00
Auteur : nu11secur1ty
EDB Vérifié : No

# Titles: Microsoft Edge Renderer Process (Mojo IPC) 134.0.6998.177 - Sandbox Escape # Author: nu11secur1ty # Date: 08/07/2025 # Vendor: Microsoft # Software: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11 # Reference: https://msrc.microsoft.com/update-guide/vulnerability/CVE-2025-49730 # CVE-2025-2783 ## Description This project contains a **proof-of-concept (PoC)** simulation for **CVE-2025-2783**, a sandbox escape and privilege escalation vulnerability affecting the Microsoft Mojo IPC subsystem on Windows 11 Pro. The simulation demonstrates how a malicious renderer process could exploit a crafted IPC message to escape sandbox restrictions and escalate privileges, potentially leading to full system compromise. --- ## Disclaimer **This code is provided for educational and responsible disclosure purposes only.** Do NOT use it for unauthorized testing or attacks on systems you do not own or have explicit permission to test. The author(s) created this simulation in a controlled environment (virtual machine) to safely demonstrate the vulnerability before reporting it to Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC). --- ## Components - `kur.py`: The main PoC Python script. It can run as either: - A phishing server hosting a malicious payload file - An exploit client that downloads the payload, simulates IPC communication, and triggers the sandbox escape. - `malicious_input.mojopipe`: The generated malicious payload JSON file (created at runtime). - `incident.log`: Log file recording actions and simulated system information captured during exploitation. --- ## Usage ### Prerequisites - Python 3.7 or later on Windows 11 Pro (preferably in a VM for safety). - Administrator privileges recommended for full information output. ### Steps 1. **Start the phishing server** (in one terminal): ```bash python kur.py ``` Enter choice: `1` This hosts the malicious payload file on `http://<your_ip>:8080/`. 2. **Run the exploit client** (in another terminal on the same machine): ```bash python kur.py ``` Enter choice: `2` This downloads the payload, simulates the IPC communication, and attempts sandbox escape. 3. **Observe logs** in `incident.log` and console output for evidence of the simulated exploit. --- ## Technical Details - The PoC simulates Mojo IPC message passing using Python's `multiprocessing.connection` module. - The exploit payload contains a special handle value that triggers the sandbox escape simulation. - When triggered, the PoC logs user and system info to demonstrate privilege escalation. - The phishing server serves the malicious payload to mimic real-world attack vector. --- ## Responsible Disclosure This simulation was developed to responsibly disclose the vulnerability to Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC). Please coordinate with MSRC before any public release or use. # Video-demo: [href](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvwtRybi6ac) # Buy me a coffee if you are not ashamed: [href](https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=ZPQZT5XMC5RFY) # Time spent: 03:35:00 -- System Administrator - Infrastructure Engineer Penetration Testing Engineer Exploit developer at https://packetstormsecurity.com/ https://cve.mitre.org/index.html https://cxsecurity.com/ and https://www.exploit-db.com/ 0day Exploit DataBase https://0day.today/ home page: https://www.nu11secur1ty.com/ hiPEnIMR0v7QCo/+SEH9gBclAAYWGnPoBIQ75sCj60E= nu11secur1ty <http://nu11secur1ty.com/> -- System Administrator - Infrastructure Engineer Penetration Testing Engineer Exploit developer at https://packetstorm.news/ https://cve.mitre.org/index.html https://cxsecurity.com/ and https://www.exploit-db.com/ 0day Exploit DataBase https://0day.today/ home page: https://www.nu11secur1ty.com/ hiPEnIMR0v7QCo/+SEH9gBclAAYWGnPoBIQ75sCj60E= nu11secur1ty <http://nu11secur1ty.com/>

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1507 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.10240.21073

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1507 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.10240.21073

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1607 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.14393.8246

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1607 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.14393.8246

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1809 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.17763.7558

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1809 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.17763.7558

Microsoft>>Windows_10_21h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.19044.6093

Microsoft>>Windows_10_22h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.19045.6093

Microsoft>>Windows_11_22h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.22621.5624

Microsoft>>Windows_11_23h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.22631.5624

Microsoft>>Windows_11_24h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.26100.4652

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2008 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version -

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2012 >> Version r2

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2016 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.14393.8246

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2019 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.17763.7558

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2022 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.20348.3932

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2022_23h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.25398.1732

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2025 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.26100.4652

Références

Les informations affichées sur CVE Find proviennent de plusieurs sources de référence rigoureusement sélectionnées. Les données CVE sont fournies par MITRE Corporation et la National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Le catalogue des vulnérabilités activement exploitées (KEV) provient de la Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), tandis que les scores EPSS sont issus de FIRST.org. Enfin, les données relatives aux faiblesses logicielles (CWE) et aux schémas d'attaque courants (CAPEC) sont maintenues par MITRE Corporation, et les informations sur les configurations logicielles et matérielles (CPE) proviennent du NVD.