CVE-2025-14265 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-14265
Vulnerability Scoring

9.1
/10
Critical Risk

As a catastrophic security flaw, CVE-2025-14265 has severe implications, demanding immediate intervention.

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity: Low
    Exploits can be performed without significant complexity or special conditions.
  • Attack Vector: Network
    Vulnerability is exploitable over a network without physical access.
  • Privileges Required: High
    High-level privileges are required for exploitation.
  • Scope: Changed
    Successful exploitation can impact components beyond the vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-14265 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕒 12 Dec 2025, 15:18 UTC
Originally published on: 🕒 11 Dec 2025, 15:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1 days

CVSS Release: version 3

CVSS3 Source

7d616e1a-3288-43b1-a0dd-0a65d3e70a49

CVSS3 Type

Secondary

CVSS3 Vector

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

CVE-2025-14265 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-14265: In versions of ScreenConnect™ prior to 25.8, server-side validation and integrity checks within the extension subsystem could allow the installation and execution of untrusted or arbitrary extensions by authorized or administrative users. Abuse of this behavior could result in the execution of custom code on the server or unauthorized access to application configuration data. This issue affects only the ScreenConnect server component; host and guest clients are not impacted. ScreenConnect 25.8 introduces enhanced server-side configuration handling and integrity checks to ensure only trusted extensions can be installed.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-14265

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-14265 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-14265

The exploitability of CVE-2025-14265 is influenced by multiple factors. Security teams should analyze system configurations and apply appropriate countermeasures to mitigate threats.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-14265, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-14265, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: High
    Exploiting CVE-2025-14265 can result in unauthorized access to sensitive data, severely compromising data privacy.
  • Integrity: High
    CVE-2025-14265 could allow unauthorized modifications to data, potentially affecting system reliability and trust.
  • Availability: High
    CVE-2025-14265 can disrupt system operations, potentially causing complete denial of service (DoS).

CVE-2025-14265 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

CWE-494

CAPEC Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification

  • Software Integrity Attack CAPEC-184 An attacker initiates a series of events designed to cause a user, program, server, or device to perform actions which undermine the integrity of software code, device data structures, or device firmware, achieving the modification of the target's integrity to achieve an insecure state.
  • Malicious Software Download CAPEC-185 An attacker uses deceptive methods to cause a user or an automated process to download and install dangerous code that originates from an attacker controlled source. There are several variations to this strategy of attack.
  • Malicious Software Update CAPEC-186 An adversary uses deceptive methods to cause a user or an automated process to download and install dangerous code believed to be a valid update that originates from an adversary controlled source.
  • Malicious Automated Software Update via Redirection CAPEC-187 An attacker exploits two layers of weaknesses in server or client software for automated update mechanisms to undermine the integrity of the target code-base. The first weakness involves a failure to properly authenticate a server as a source of update or patch content. This type of weakness typically results from authentication mechanisms which can be defeated, allowing a hostile server to satisfy the criteria that establish a trust relationship. The second weakness is a systemic failure to validate the identity and integrity of code downloaded from a remote location, hence the inability to distinguish malicious code from a legitimate update.
  • Malicious Manual Software Update CAPEC-533 An attacker introduces malicious code to the victim's system by altering the payload of a software update, allowing for additional compromise or site disruption at the victim location. These manual, or user-assisted attacks, vary from requiring the user to download and run an executable, to as streamlined as tricking the user to click a URL. Attacks which aim at penetrating a specific network infrastructure often rely upon secondary attack methods to achieve the desired impact. Spamming, for example, is a common method employed as an secondary attack vector. Thus the attacker has in their arsenal a choice of initial attack vectors ranging from traditional SMTP/POP/IMAP spamming and its varieties, to web-application mechanisms which commonly implement both chat and rich HTML messaging within the user interface.
  • Open-Source Library Manipulation CAPEC-538 Adversaries implant malicious code in open source software (OSS) libraries to have it widely distributed, as OSS is commonly downloaded by developers and other users to incorporate into software development projects. The adversary can have a particular system in mind to target, or the implantation can be the first stage of follow-on attacks on many systems.
  • Malicious Automated Software Update via Spoofing CAPEC-657 An attackers uses identify or content spoofing to trick a client into performing an automated software update from a malicious source. A malicious automated software update that leverages spoofing can include content or identity spoofing as well as protocol spoofing. Content or identity spoofing attacks can trigger updates in software by embedding scripted mechanisms within a malicious web page, which masquerades as a legitimate update source. Scripting mechanisms communicate with software components and trigger updates from locations specified by the attackers' server. The result is the client believing there is a legitimate software update available but instead downloading a malicious update from the attacker.
  • Adversary in the Browser (AiTB) CAPEC-662 An adversary exploits security vulnerabilities or inherent functionalities of a web browser, in order to manipulate traffic between two endpoints.
  • Spoof Open-Source Software Metadata CAPEC-691 An adversary spoofs open-source software metadata in an attempt to masquerade malicious software as popular, maintained, and trusted.
  • Spoof Version Control System Commit Metadata CAPEC-692 An adversary spoofs metadata pertaining to a Version Control System (VCS) (e.g., Git) repository's commits to deceive users into believing that the maliciously provided software is frequently maintained and originates from a trusted source.
  • StarJacking CAPEC-693 An adversary spoofs software popularity metadata to deceive users into believing that a maliciously provided package is widely used and originates from a trusted source.
  • Repo Jacking CAPEC-695 An adversary takes advantage of the redirect property of directly linked Version Control System (VCS) repositories to trick users into incorporating malicious code into their applications.

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-14265: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-15166 – A vulnerability was found in itsourcecode Online Cake Ordering System 1.0. This affects an unknown function of the file /updatesupplier.php?action=...
  • CVE-2025-15165 – A vulnerability has been found in itsourcecode Online Cake Ordering System 1.0. The impacted element is an unknown function of the file /updatecust...
  • CVE-2025-15164 – A security flaw has been discovered in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. This affects an unknown part of the file /goform/SafeMacFilter. The manipulation of th...
  • CVE-2025-15163 – A vulnerability was identified in Tenda WH450 1.0.0.18. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file /goform/SafeEmailFilter. T...
  • CVE-2025-15067 – Unrestricted Upload of File with Dangerous Type vulnerability in Innorix Innorix WP allows Upload a Web Shell to a Web Server.This issue affects In...