CVE-2025-57797VulnerabilityPublished 27 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-57797: PFU ScanSnap Manager installers · Incorrect privilege assignment

Affects PFU ScanSnap Manager installersSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High : upgrade to 6.5 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

7.8High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 6.5

CVSS:3.0/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 27 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 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 PFU ScanSnap Manager installers to 6.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PFU Limited ScanSnap Manager installers	Affected <6.5	Fixed in 6.5

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately verify the versions of ScanSnap Manager installers deployed across their environments and prioritize upgrading to version V6.5L61 or later, where this vulnerability is addressed. In the interim, organizations should restrict local access to systems running vulnerable ScanSnap Manager installers, enforcing strict access controls and monitoring for unusual local activity. Implementing application whitelisting can prevent unauthorized execution of arbitrary commands. Additionally, deploying endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions can help detect privilege escalation attempts. Regular auditing of user privileges and local accounts can reduce the risk of exploitation by limiting the number of users with local access. Network segmentation should be employed to isolate systems with ScanSnap software from critical infrastructure to limit potential lateral movement. Finally, organizations should educate users about the risks of local privilege escalation and ensure that only trusted personnel have authenticated local access to vulnerable systems.

Description

Incorrect privilege assignment vulnerability exists in ScanSnap Manager installers versions prior to V6.5L61. If this vulnerability is exploited, an authenticated local attacker may escalate privileges and execute an arbitrary command.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be substantial, especially in sectors relying heavily on document management and scanning solutions, such as legal, financial, healthcare, and government institutions. Exploitation could allow malicious insiders or compromised local users to gain elevated privileges, bypassing security controls and potentially accessing sensitive documents or injecting malicious commands into the system. This could lead to data breaches, intellectual property theft, or disruption of critical document workflows. Additionally, since ScanSnap devices are often connected to networked environments, privilege escalation on a local machine could serve as a pivot point for lateral movement within corporate networks, increasing the risk of broader compromise. The lack of user interaction requirement means that once an attacker has local access, exploitation can be automated or executed stealthily, increasing the threat level. Given the high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts, organizations could face regulatory penalties under GDPR if sensitive personal data is exposed or compromised due to this vulnerability.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Aug 2025, 06:02 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats