VulnerabilityPublished 7 Aug 2025Updated 8 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-50675: Incorrect Permissions

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., 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 may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: High: There is 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.
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: 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 7 Aug 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability effectively, European organizations should take the following specific actions: 1) Immediately audit the file permissions of the GPMAW installation directory on all systems and restrict access to only trusted administrative users. Remove write and execute permissions for non-administrative users to prevent unauthorized modifications. 2) Implement strict endpoint security controls, including application whitelisting and integrity monitoring, to detect and prevent unauthorized changes to executable files within the GPMAW directory. 3) Enforce the principle of least privilege by limiting user accounts that have local access to systems running GPMAW, reducing the attack surface. 4) Monitor logs and system behavior for unusual uninstaller executions or modifications to GPsetup64_17028.exe. 5) Consider isolating bioinformatics workstations or servers in segmented network zones with enhanced access controls to limit lateral movement. 6) Engage with the software vendor to request a patch or official guidance and subscribe to vulnerability advisories for updates. 7) As a temporary workaround, disable or restrict the use of the uninstaller executable where feasible, or require manual verification before uninstallation processes proceed. These targeted measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on permission hardening, monitoring, and operational controls tailored to the specific exploitation vector.

Description

GPMAW 14, a bioinformatics software, has a critical vulnerability related to insecure file permissions in its installation directory. The directory is accessible with full read, write, and execute permissions for all users, allowing unprivileged users to manipulate files within the directory, including executable files like GPMAW3.exe, Fragment.exe, and the uninstaller GPsetup64_17028.exe. An attacker with user-level access can exploit this misconfiguration by replacing or modifying the uninstaller (GPsetup64_17028.exe) with a malicious version. While the application itself runs in the user's context, the uninstaller is typically executed with administrative privileges when an administrator attempts to uninstall the software. By exploiting this flaw, an attacker could gain administrative privileges and execute arbitrary code in the context of the admin, resulting in privilege escalation.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly those involved in bioinformatics, pharmaceuticals, or healthcare research, this vulnerability poses a severe threat. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized administrative access on critical research or production systems, potentially resulting in data theft, manipulation of sensitive biological data, disruption of research workflows, or deployment of persistent malware. Given the sensitive nature of bioinformatics data, confidentiality breaches could have regulatory and reputational consequences under GDPR and other data protection laws. The integrity and availability of research data and software environments could be compromised, impacting ongoing scientific projects and collaborations. Additionally, since the vulnerability requires only local user access, insider threats or attackers who gain initial footholds through other means could leverage this flaw to escalate privileges and move laterally within networks. The absence of patches means organizations must rely on compensating controls to mitigate risk, increasing operational complexity.

CWE-732Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
Implementation
When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user), and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (opens in a new tab)
Signing Malicious Code (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Aug 2025, 01:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-732

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats