CVE-2025-14728VulnerabilityPublished 29 Dec 2025Updated 30 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-14728: Rapid7 Velociraptor · Path Traversal

Affects Rapid7 VelociraptorSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 0.75.6 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 46% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.75.6

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 29 Dec 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
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), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-25.

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 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

Upgrade Rapid7 Velociraptor to 0.75.6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Rapid7 Velociraptor	Affected =0 <0.75.6	Fixed in 0.75.6

AI-suggested

1. Upgrade Velociraptor to version 0.75.6 or later immediately, as this version addresses the directory traversal vulnerability. 2. Implement strict input validation on directory and file names, ensuring that any special characters such as dots or encoded sequences cannot be used to escape the intended datastore directory. 3. Employ file integrity monitoring on the Velociraptor datastore and adjacent directories to detect unauthorized file writes or modifications. 4. Restrict network access to Velociraptor server endpoints to trusted clients only, minimizing exposure to rogue clients attempting exploitation. 5. Conduct regular audits of Velociraptor logs and uploaded files to identify anomalous activity indicative of exploitation attempts. 6. Consider deploying application-layer firewalls or intrusion detection systems with rules tailored to detect suspicious path traversal patterns targeting Velociraptor. 7. Educate security teams about this specific vulnerability to ensure rapid response and remediation in case of detection.

Description

Rapid7 Velociraptor versions before 0.75.6 contain a directory traversal issue on Linux servers that allows a rogue client to upload a file which is written outside the datastore directory. Velociraptor is normally only allowed to write in the datastore directory. The issue occurs due to insufficient sanitization of directory names which end with a ".", only encoding the final "." AS "%2E". Although files can be written to incorrect locations, the containing directory must end with "%2E". This limits the impact of this vulnerability, and prevents it from overwriting critical files.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to the integrity of forensic and monitoring data managed by Velociraptor. Attackers exploiting this flaw could place unauthorized files outside the designated datastore, potentially leading to tampering with incident response evidence or insertion of malicious payloads that evade detection. Although the overwrite scope is limited and critical system files cannot be directly overwritten, the ability to write files outside the intended directory undermines trust in the tool's data integrity. This could impact organizations in sectors with stringent compliance requirements such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, where forensic accuracy is paramount. Additionally, organizations using Velociraptor in managed detection and response (MDR) services or security operations centers (SOCs) could face operational disruptions or false incident data. The medium severity rating suggests that while the vulnerability is not trivially exploitable, it requires careful attention to patching and monitoring to prevent potential misuse.

CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

docs.velociraptor.app/announcements/advisories/cve-2025-14728/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Dec 2025, 23:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats