VulnerabilityPublished 14 Aug 2025Updated 21 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-9043: Seagate Toolkit · Unquoted Search Path or Element

Affects Seagate ToolkitSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.7 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:16 UTC

CVSS 4.0 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:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: High
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system 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 through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 vulnerable system. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Seagate Toolkit	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-9043, European organizations should take the following specific actions: 1) Immediately audit and restrict write permissions on root directories of drives where Seagate Toolkit is installed, ensuring that only trusted administrators have such access. 2) Apply the latest version of Seagate Toolkit (2.34.0.33 or later) once it becomes available, as it is expected to address the unquoted path issue. 3) Until patches are available, consider running the Seagate Toolkit service under a less privileged account if feasible, to reduce the impact of potential exploitation. 4) Implement application whitelisting and endpoint detection to monitor and block unauthorized executable files placed in critical directories. 5) Conduct regular privilege audits to detect unnecessary administrative rights and reduce the attack surface. 6) Monitor system logs for suspicious activity related to service startups and unexpected execution of executables in root directories. 7) Educate administrators about the risks of unquoted search path vulnerabilities and the importance of secure service configuration. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on permission hardening, service configuration, and proactive monitoring tailored to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

The service executable path in Seagate Toolkit on Versions prior to 2.34.0.33 on Windows allows an attacker with Admin privileges to exploit a vulnerability as classified under CWE-428: Unquoted Search Path or Element. An attacker with write permissions to the root could place a malicious Program.exe file, which would execute with SYSTEM privileges.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-9043 can be significant in environments where Seagate Toolkit is deployed, particularly in sectors that rely on Seagate storage solutions and associated management software. The privilege escalation to SYSTEM level can allow attackers to execute arbitrary code with the highest privileges, potentially leading to full system compromise, unauthorized data access, or persistence mechanisms that evade detection. This could affect data integrity and system reliability, especially in critical infrastructure, financial institutions, and enterprises with sensitive data. Although exploitation requires administrative access, insider threats or attackers who have already compromised an admin account could leverage this vulnerability to deepen their control. The lack of known exploits currently reduces immediate risk, but organizations should not be complacent given the potential severity of post-exploitation impacts. Additionally, the vulnerability could be chained with other exploits to facilitate lateral movement or privilege escalation within corporate networks.

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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 22 Aug 2025, 00:41 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-428

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats