VulnerabilityPublished 29 Oct 2025Updated 30 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-60320: Unquoted Search Path or Element

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% 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:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
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: 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: 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 29 Oct 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 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

1. Apply official patches or updates from memoQ as soon as they become available to correct the unquoted service path. 2. In the absence of patches, restrict local user permissions to prevent unauthorized file creation in system root directories such as C:\. 3. Use application whitelisting and endpoint protection solutions to detect and block unauthorized executables, especially in critical paths like C:\. 4. Audit existing service paths on affected systems to identify other unquoted service path vulnerabilities and remediate them by adding quotes or correcting the service configuration. 5. Implement strict local user access controls and limit the number of users with administrative privileges. 6. Monitor system logs and file system changes for suspicious activity around the C:\Program.exe path or similar locations. 7. Educate system administrators and users about the risks of unquoted service paths and the importance of secure service configurations. 8. Consider deploying host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to alert on privilege escalation attempts. 9. Regularly review and harden endpoint security policies to reduce the attack surface for local privilege escalation.

Description

memoQ 10.1.13.ef1b2b52aae and earlier contains an unquoted service path vulnerability in the memoQ Auto Update Service (memoQauhlp101). The affected service is installed with a path containing spaces and without surrounding quotes. This misconfiguration allows local users to escalate privileges to SYSTEM by placing a malicious executable at C:\Program.exe.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those in the translation, localization, and content management sectors using memoQ, this vulnerability poses a significant risk of local privilege escalation. An attacker with limited local access could gain SYSTEM-level privileges, potentially allowing full control over affected systems, access to sensitive data, and the ability to deploy persistent malware or disrupt services. This could lead to data breaches, operational downtime, and compromise of intellectual property. The impact is heightened in environments with multiple users or where endpoint security is less stringent. Given memoQ's popularity in European language service providers and multinational corporations, the vulnerability could affect critical business processes and client confidentiality. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, as attackers may develop exploits once the vulnerability is public. Organizations with strict regulatory requirements such as GDPR must consider the potential for data exposure and compliance violations resulting from such privilege escalations.

CWE-428Unquoted Search Path or Element (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product uses a search path that contains an unquoted element, in which the element contains whitespace or other separators. This can cause the product to access resources in a parent path.
Implementation
Properly quote the full search path before executing a program on the system.
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).
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 6 Nov 2025, 02:16 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-428

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats