Link Following (Symlink)Weakness · CWE-59

CVE-2025-12341

HIGH · 7.8 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-10-28
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
80/100
Remediation priority · High
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 detected in ermig1979 AntiDupl up to 2.3.12. Impacted is an unknown function of the file AntiDupl.NET.WinForms.exe of the component Delete Duplicate Image Handler. The manipulation results in link following. The attack is only possible with local access. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

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 link following (symlink) vulnerability exists in AntiDupl up to v2.3.12 within the Delete Duplicate Image Handler component (AntiDupl.NET.WinForms.exe). An attacker with local access can manipulate symbolic links to cause the application to perform operations on unintended files, potentially leading to privilege escalation or file overwrite. The vendor was contacted but did not respond.

MitigationSince no vendor patch is available, apply defense-in-depth: run AntiDupl with least privilege, restrict user access to the application directory and any directories it processes, and consider using alternative duplicate image detection tools until a fix is released.

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 checks

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

  1. Verify AntiDupl installation and version
    Check for AntiDupl.NET.WinForms.exe in the installation directory (typically C:\Program Files\AntiDupl or C:\Program Files (x86)\AntiDupl) and note the file version property. Alternatively, run the application and check Help > About for the version number.
    Affected if The installed version is 2.3.12 or any version prior to 2.3.12.
  2. Identify if Delete Duplicate Image Handler is used
    Review application logs or settings for any configured delete handlers. In the UI, check under Options or Settings for any enabled deletion actions, particularly those involving the Delete Duplicate Image Handler functionality.
    Affected if The Delete Duplicate Image Handler feature is enabled or configured in the application settings.
  3. Inspect processed directories for symlinks
    Examine the directories configured for duplicate image scanning using the 'dir' command with /AL (alternate stream) or by using a tool like 'fsutil reparsepoint' to detect symbolic links within those directories.
    Affected if Symbolic links exist within directories that AntiDupl processes, and the application has write permissions to locations outside the intended scope.
  4. Check application execution context
    Review the user account running AntiDupl.NET.WinForms.exe and verify what file system permissions that account has. Check if the application has write access to sensitive directories.
    Affected if AntiDupl runs with elevated privileges or has broad file system access beyond the directories intentionally scanned.

You are affected if you are running AntiDupl version 2.3.12 or earlier, have the Delete Duplicate Image Handler enabled, and process directories that may contain symbolic links.

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

Since no vendor patch is available, apply defense-in-depth: run AntiDupl with least privilege, restrict user access to the application directory and any directories it processes, and consider using alternative duplicate image detection tools until a fix is released.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
20.0 hours of engineering $3,500
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-12341 — 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-2025-12341 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