VulnerabilityPublished 17 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-67789: DriveLock · Improper Access Control

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium · fixed in 25.1.5 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 25.1.5, 24.2.7, 24.1.6

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: 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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 17 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 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

1. 2. Until patches are deployed, restrict API access strictly to trusted users and monitor API usage logs for unusual requests or access patterns that could indicate exploitation attempts. 3. Implement strong authentication and authorization controls, including multi-factor authentication, to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 4. Conduct regular audits of tenant isolation and access control policies within DriveLock and any integrated systems to ensure no cross-tenant data leakage occurs. 5. Engage with DriveLock support or security teams to confirm the status of patches and any recommended configuration changes. 6. Educate users about the risks of credential sharing and phishing attacks that could lead to authenticated access by unauthorized parties. 7. Consider network segmentation or API gateway controls to limit exposure of the DriveLock API to only necessary users and systems. 8. Review compliance implications under GDPR and other relevant regulations to ensure that any data exposure is promptly addressed and reported if required.

Description

An issue was discovered in DriveLock 24.1 before 24.1.6, 24.2 before 24.2.7, and 25.1 before 25.1.5. Authenticated users can retrieve the computer count of other DriveLock tenants via the DriveLock API.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-67789 is the unauthorized disclosure of tenant-specific metadata, specifically the number of computers managed under other DriveLock tenants. While this does not directly compromise system integrity or availability, it can provide attackers or competitors with valuable intelligence about the size and scope of other organizations’ deployments. This information could be used to tailor social engineering attacks, plan targeted intrusions, or gain competitive advantage. Organizations relying on DriveLock for endpoint security and data protection may face increased risk of reconnaissance-based attacks if this vulnerability is exploited. Additionally, the exposure of such metadata could violate data protection regulations like GDPR if it leads to unauthorized profiling or data leakage. The vulnerability requires authentication, so insider threats or compromised user credentials could be leveraged to exploit it. European enterprises with multi-tenant environments or those sharing infrastructure with partners should be particularly cautious. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future abuse.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

drivelock.help/versions/current/web/en/releasenotes/Content/ReleaseNotes_DriveLock/SecurityBulletins/25-004-DESInfoDisclosure.htm (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Dec 2025, 20:58 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats