Improper Certificate ValidationWeakness · CWE-295

CVE-2025-12047

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-11-12
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
58/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
A vulnerability was reported in the Lenovo Scanner pro application during an internal security assessment that, under certain circumstances, could allow an attacker on the same logical network to disclose sensitive user files from the application.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · moderate confidence

A file disclosure vulnerability in Lenovo Scanner Pro allows attackers on the same logical network to read sensitive user files. The vulnerability likely stems from insecure file handling, improper access controls, or path traversal issues in the application's file processing logic.

MitigationApply vendor patches when available; restrict network access to the application using firewall rules and network segmentation; ensure the application runs with least-privilege file permissions.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Adjacent
Complexity
High
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
None
Availability
None

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

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify if Lenovo Scanner Pro is installed
    Check for Lenovo Scanner Pro in installed programs. On Windows, open Settings > Apps > Apps & features, or run 'Get-WmiObject -Class Win32_Product' in PowerShell and filter for 'Lenovo Scanner' or 'Lenovo Scanner Pro'. On macOS, check /Applications folder and ~/Applications for the application.
    Affected if The application is present on the system
  2. Determine the installed version
    Right-click the application in Apps & features and select 'Advanced options', or right-click the executable in the installation directory and view Properties > Details. On macOS, right-click the app > Get Info or run 'mdls' command on the application bundle.
    Affected if Any version of Lenovo Scanner Pro is installed (no specific fixed version range provided in CVE details)
  3. Verify if file sharing or network features are enabled
    Open Lenovo Scanner Pro and check Settings or Preferences for any file sharing, network transfer, or remote access features. Look for options related to 'Share', 'Network', 'Remote', or file transfer functionality. Check if the application listens on any network ports.
    Affected if File sharing, network transfer, or remote access features are enabled and exposed to the network
  4. Check network listening ports
    Open Command Prompt and run 'netstat -an | findstr LISTENING' to see all listening ports. Look for ports associated with Lenovo Scanner Pro process. Also check Windows Firewall advanced security for any inbound rules allowing this application.
    Affected if Lenovo Scanner Pro is listening on network-accessible ports without proper authentication

A user is affected if Lenovo Scanner Pro is installed and has network-accessible file sharing or remote access features enabled, allowing unauthenticated attackers on the same network to read sensitive files.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

From vendor data
Mitigation available No clean upgrade yet — mitigate in the meantime
Mitigation

Apply vendor patches when available; restrict network access to the application using firewall rules and network segmentation; ensure the application runs with least-privilege file permissions.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing4.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
19.0 hours of engineering $3,380
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-12047 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-12047 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data