VulnerabilityPublished 10 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-43886: Dell PowerProtect Data Manager · Path Traversal: '.../...//

Affects Dell PowerProtect Data ManagerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.4 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.4Medium

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component 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 remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: 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.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is 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).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Sep 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 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
Dell PowerProtect Data Manager	Affected =19.19 =19.20	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should implement the following specific measures: 1) Restrict and monitor local administrative access to systems running Dell PowerProtect Data Manager, ensuring that only trusted personnel have high privilege accounts. 2) Employ strict access controls and auditing on backup servers to detect any unauthorized access attempts or suspicious filesystem activity. 3) Apply principle of least privilege to limit the scope of local accounts, reducing the risk of exploitation by insiders or compromised accounts. 4) Monitor Dell’s security advisories closely for patches or updates addressing CVE-2025-43886 and prioritize timely deployment once available. 5) Consider deploying host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to identify anomalous file access patterns indicative of path traversal exploitation attempts. 6) Conduct regular security training for administrators to raise awareness about the risks of privilege misuse and the importance of secure credential management. 7) If possible, isolate backup management systems in segmented network zones to limit lateral movement in case of compromise. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling local high-privilege access and monitoring filesystem integrity specific to the affected product environment.

Description

Dell PowerProtect Data Manager, version(s) 19.19 and 19.20, Hyper-V contain(s) a Path Traversal: '.../...//' vulnerability. A high privileged attacker with local access could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Filesystem access for attacker.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability could be substantial, especially for those relying on Dell PowerProtect Data Manager for critical backup and disaster recovery operations. Unauthorized filesystem access by a high-privileged local attacker could lead to disruption of backup services, potential data loss, or denial of service conditions affecting data availability. This could impair business continuity and compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR, which mandates stringent controls on data integrity and availability. Organizations in sectors with high data sensitivity—such as finance, healthcare, and government—may face increased operational risks and regulatory scrutiny if backups are compromised or unavailable. Additionally, since the vulnerability requires local high privilege access, insider threats or compromised administrative accounts pose a significant risk vector. The lack of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits once the vulnerability details become widely known.

CWE-35Path Traversal: '.../...//' (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2021: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that should be within a restricted directory, but it does not properly neutralize '.../...//' (doubled triple dot slash) sequences that can resolve to a location that is outside of that 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.
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 ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

dell.com/support/kbdoc/en-us/000367456/dsa-2025-326-security-update-for-dell-powerprotect-data-manager-multiple-security-vulnerabilities (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Sep 2025, 00:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-35

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats