CVE-2025-67790VulnerabilityPublished 17 Dec 2025Updated 18 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-67790: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical · fixed in 25.1.5 : patch affected systems as a priority.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% 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:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 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 2026-10-26.

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. 2. Restrict access to vulnerable interfaces: Limit access to the DriveLock driver’s IOCTL interface to trusted and authorized users only, using Windows security policies and access control lists (ACLs). 3. Network segmentation: Isolate critical systems running DriveLock from untrusted networks and users to reduce exposure to remote exploitation. 4. Implement endpoint monitoring: Deploy advanced endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to detect anomalous IOCTL requests or unusual system crashes that may indicate exploitation attempts. 5. Conduct regular system integrity checks and backups: Ensure that critical data and system states are backed up frequently to enable rapid recovery from crashes or data corruption. 6. User privilege management: Enforce the principle of least privilege to minimize the number of users with access to vulnerable systems and interfaces. 7. Incident response readiness: Prepare and test incident response plans specifically for denial-of-service scenarios caused by system crashes to minimize downtime.

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. An unprivileged user could cause occasionally a Blue Screen Of Death (BSOD) on Windows computers by using an IOCTL and an unterminated string.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-67790 is primarily a denial-of-service condition that can cause critical Windows systems to crash unexpectedly. This can disrupt business continuity, especially in environments relying heavily on endpoint security solutions like DriveLock for device control and data protection. The resulting BSODs can lead to loss of unsaved data, interruption of critical services, and increased operational costs due to system downtime and recovery efforts. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and government, where DriveLock is commonly deployed, may face significant operational risks. Additionally, repeated crashes could be leveraged as part of a larger attack chain to distract or disable security monitoring and response capabilities. The vulnerability’s ease of exploitation without requiring privileges or user interaction means that insider threats or attackers who gain limited access could cause widespread disruption. This is particularly concerning for European enterprises with strict regulatory requirements around data availability and integrity, such as GDPR and NIS Directive compliance.

CWE-170Improper Null Termination (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product does not terminate or incorrectly terminates a string or array with a null character or equivalent terminator.
Requirements
Use a language that is not susceptible to these issues. However, be careful of null byte interaction errors (CWE-626) with lower-level constructs that may be written in a language that is susceptible.
Implementation
Ensure that all string functions used are understood fully as to how they append null characters. Also, be wary of off-by-one errors when appending nulls to the end of strings.
Implementation
If performance constraints permit, special code can be added that validates null-termination of string buffers, this is a rather naive and error-prone solution.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

drivelock.help/versions/2025_1/web/en/releasenotes/Content/ReleaseNotes_DriveLock/SecurityBulletins/25-005-BufferOverreadBSOD.htm (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 24 Dec 2025, 21:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-170

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats