CVE-2025-12050
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 · uneditedThe drivers in the tool packages use RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT flag to read a registry value to which an untrusted user-mode application may be able to cause a buffer overflow.
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 confidenceWindows drivers in tool packages use the RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT flag to read registry values without proper buffer size validation, allowing an untrusted user-mode application to trigger a buffer overflow. This enables privilege escalation from user-mode to kernel context.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify drivers using RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT flagUse a disassembler or driver analysis tool to examine driver binaries in your system. Search for references to 'RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT' in driver code or binaries. Focus on drivers from third-party tool packages.Affected if A driver from a tool package uses RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT without documented buffer size validation checks in the registry reading code path.
-
Review registry read code for buffer validationExamine the driver's code that handles RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT operations. Look for explicit buffer size checks (e.g., comparisons against registry value sizes) before any memory copy or memcpy operations.Affected if The driver performs registry reads with RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT but lacks size validation code before copying data into fixed-size buffers.
-
Check for user-mode accessible registry operationsIdentify if the vulnerable driver exposes any IOCTLs or interfaces callable by untrusted user-mode applications that trigger the registry reading code path.Affected if Untrusted user-mode applications can trigger the driver's registry reading functionality that lacks buffer validation.
-
Verify driver source for RtlQueryRegistryValues callsIf driver source code is available, search for calls to RtlQueryRegistryValues or equivalent APIs using RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT. Confirm the DestinationBuffer parameter size is not validated against the actual registry value size.Affected if The driver passes a fixed-size DestinationBuffer to RtlQueryRegistryValues with RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT without validating the registry value size fits within the buffer.
Your environment is affected if you have drivers from tool packages that use RTL_QUERY_REGISTRY_DIRECT to read registry values without validating buffer sizes, and these drivers are accessible to untrusted user-mode callers.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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 dataUpdate to patched driver versions when available; review and harden registry reading code in drivers to validate buffer sizes before copying data.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-12050 — 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 sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-12050 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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