VulnerabilityPublished 15 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10475: SpyShelter · Denial of Service

Affects SpyShelterSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.8Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
SpyShelter	Affected =15.4.0.1015	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-10475, European organizations should immediately upgrade SpyShelter to version 15.4.0.1028 or later, as this version contains the patch that addresses the vulnerability. Additionally, organizations should enforce strict local access controls to limit the number of users with local access and restrict the ability to execute untrusted code or commands locally. Implementing application whitelisting and endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions can help detect and prevent attempts to exploit this vulnerability. Regularly auditing and monitoring local user activities can also reduce the risk of exploitation. Organizations should ensure that their incident response plans include procedures for handling denial of service conditions affecting endpoint protection software. Finally, educating users about the risks of local exploitation and maintaining up-to-date security software will further reduce exposure.

Description

A weakness has been identified in SpyShelter up to 15.4.0.1015. Affected is an unknown function in the library SpyShelter.sys of the component IOCTL Handler. This manipulation causes denial of service. The attack needs to be launched locally. The exploit has been made available to the public and could be exploited. Upgrading to version 15.4.0.1028 is able to address this issue. It is advisable to upgrade the affected component.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-10475 is the potential disruption of endpoint protection provided by SpyShelter. A successful local denial of service attack could disable or crash the SpyShelter driver, temporarily removing critical malware and keylogger defenses. This could increase the risk of subsequent compromise or data leakage if attackers exploit the window of reduced protection. Organizations relying on SpyShelter for endpoint security, especially those with environments where local user access is common or where insider threats exist, may face increased risk. The disruption could also affect operational continuity if the denial of service impacts critical systems or user productivity. However, since the attack requires local access and limited privileges, remote exploitation is not feasible, reducing the risk for organizations with strong access controls. The medium severity rating indicates that while the vulnerability is serious, it is not critical, but it should still be addressed promptly to maintain endpoint security integrity.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…