CVE-2025-14823
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 · uneditedIn deployments using the ScreenConnect™ Certificate Signing Extension, encrypted configuration values including an Azure Key Vault-related key, could be returned to unauthenticated users through a client-facing endpoint under certain conditions. The values remained encrypted and securely stored at rest; however, an encrypted representation could be exposed in client responses. Updating the Certificate Signing Extension to version 1.0.12 or higher ensures configuration handling occurs exclusively on the server side, preventing encrypted values from being transmitted to or rendered by client-side components.
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 confidenceThe Certificate Signing Extension in ScreenConnect exposes encrypted configuration values (including Azure Key Vault keys) to unauthenticated users through client-facing endpoints under certain conditions. While the values remain encrypted at rest, their encrypted representation is transmitted to client-side components, potentially aiding further attacks.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 1.0.12CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm ScreenConnect installation and versionLocate the ScreenConnect installation directory and check the version information, typically found in the application itself or in installation logsAffected if The installed version is earlier than 1.0.12
-
Identify Certificate Signing ExtensionAccess the ScreenConnect admin interface and navigate to the Extensions or Plugins section to list installed extensionsAffected if The Certificate Signing Extension is present in the list of installed extensions
-
Verify extension versionWithin the Extension details in the admin interface, check the version number of the Certificate Signing ExtensionAffected if The extension version is earlier than 1.0.12
-
Confirm client-facing endpoint accessibilityDetermine if the ScreenConnect web interface is exposed to unauthenticated or client-facing access by reviewing network configuration and access controlsAffected if The ScreenConnect client portal is accessible without authentication or to unauthenticated users
-
Inspect for exposed encrypted valuesUse a browser or HTTP tool to access client-facing endpoints and examine responses for encrypted configuration strings that may contain Azure Key Vault keys or similar sensitive valuesAffected if Encrypted configuration values appear in client-facing HTTP responses
You are affected if ScreenConnect version is earlier than 1.0.12, the Certificate Signing Extension is installed, and client-facing endpoints are accessible to unauthenticated users.
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.
dbcve · scoped1.0.12
Update the Certificate Signing Extension to version 1.0.12 or higher to ensure configuration handling occurs exclusively on the server side and prevent encrypted values from being transmitted to clients.
ScreenConnect Certificate Signing Extension version 1.0.12 or higher
- 1. Identify the current version of the ScreenConnect Certificate Signing Extension installed in your environment.
- 2. Navigate to the official ConnectWise/ConnectWise website (www.connectwise.com) or the official ScreenConnect download portal.
- 3. Download the Certificate Signing Extension version 1.0.12 or higher.
- 4. Back up your current ScreenConnect configuration and any related extension configurations.
- 5. Install or apply the Certificate Signing Extension version 1.0.12 or higher following the standard extension upgrade procedure.
- 6. Verify the upgrade was successful by confirming the extension version displays 1.0.12 or higher in the ScreenConnect administration interface.
- 7. Test the client-facing endpoints to confirm encrypted configuration values are no longer exposed in client responses.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,696.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-14823 — 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-2025-14823 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