VulnerabilityPublished 16 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-69784: Uncontrolled Search Path Element

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.8High

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% 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:C/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 16 Mar 2026
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 CVE-2025-69784, organizations should: 1) Immediately restrict local access to systems running OpenEDR 2.5.1.0 to trusted users only, minimizing risk of local exploitation. 2) Monitor and audit usage of IOCTL calls related to OpenEDR kernel driver for suspicious activity indicative of path manipulation. 3) Implement application whitelisting and integrity checks on DLLs loaded by OpenEDR to detect unauthorized modifications. 4) Employ endpoint protection solutions that can detect anomalous DLL injection or privilege escalation attempts. 5) Engage with OpenEDR vendor for patches or updates addressing this vulnerability and apply them as soon as available. 6) Consider deploying host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to alert on unexpected changes to DLL paths or kernel driver behavior. 7) Harden system configurations to limit writable directories accessible to non-privileged users, reducing the ability to redirect DLL paths. 8) Conduct regular security training to raise awareness of local privilege escalation risks among system administrators and users. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on monitoring, access control, and integrity verification specific to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

A local, non-privileged attacker can abuse a vulnerable IOCTL interface exposed by the OpenEDR 2.5.1.0 kernel driver to modify the DLL injection path used by the product. By redirecting this path to a user-writable location, an attacker can cause OpenEDR to load an attacker-controlled DLL into high-privilege processes. This results in arbitrary code execution with SYSTEM privileges, leading to full compromise of the affected system.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2025-69784 is severe for organizations using OpenEDR 2.5.1.0. Successful exploitation leads to full system compromise with SYSTEM privileges, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code, disable security controls, steal sensitive data, install persistent malware, or move laterally within networks. Because OpenEDR is a security product designed to detect and respond to threats, compromising it undermines the entire endpoint security infrastructure, increasing risk of undetected attacks. Organizations in sectors with high security requirements such as finance, healthcare, government, and critical infrastructure are particularly at risk. The vulnerability requires local access, so insider threats or attackers who have already gained limited access can escalate privileges to full control. The absence of known exploits currently limits immediate widespread attacks, but the high severity and potential for full compromise make this a critical issue to address promptly.

CWE-427Uncontrolled Search Path Element (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product uses a fixed or controlled search path to find resources, but one or more locations in that path can be under the control of unintended actors.
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Hard-code the search path to a set of known-safe values (such as system directories), or only allow them to be specified by the administrator in a configuration file. Do not allow these settings to be modified by an external party. Be careful to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-426 and CWE-428.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
When invoking other programs, specify those programs using fully-qualified pathnames. While this is an effective approach, code that uses fully-qualified pathnames might not be portable to other systems that do not use the same pathnames.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Remove or restrict all environment settings before invoking other programs. This includes the PATH environment variable, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, and other settings that identify the location of code libraries, and any application-specific search paths.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging/Manipulating Configuration File Search Paths (opens in a new tab)
Search Order Hijacking (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 16 Mar 2026, 16:20 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-427

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats