Deserialization of Untrusted DataWeakness · CWE-502

CVE-2025-15610

CRITICAL · 9.3 CVSS v4.0 Published 2026-04-15
Mitigation only
No fix yet — a mitigation exists. There is no fixed release. A documented workaround reduces exposure in the meantime.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable 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
The .NET Remoting framework used by OpenText Fax (RightFax) includes known security vulnerabilities that could be exploited if the service is exposed in environments where the remoting ports are accessible.

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

OpenText RightFax uses .NET Remoting, an older Microsoft framework with known deserialization vulnerabilities that can lead to remote code execution. When remoting ports are accessible to untrusted networks, attackers can exploit these flaws to execute arbitrary code on the affected server.

MitigationRestrict network access to RightFax remoting ports by implementing firewall rules or network segmentation to block untrusted access; if possible, disable .NET Remoting entirely or apply vendor-supplied patches.

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
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
Authentication
X
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X

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. Confirm RightFax installation
    Check for RightFax installation directory (typically C:\Program Files\OpenText\RightFax or C:\RightFax), RightFax services in Windows Services (look for 'RightFax' or 'Fax' services), or registry keys under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\RightFax
    Affected if RightFax is not installed on the system
  2. Identify .NET Remoting configuration
    Examine RightFax configuration files in the installation directory for .NET Remoting settings. Look for files like RFaxServer.exe.config or Web.config that may contain <system.runtime.remoting> sections
    Affected if Remoting configuration sections are present and enabled in RightFax config files
  3. Locate remoting service ports
    Search configuration files for port numbers in remoting settings (common default: port 5052, but check for any <channel> definitions with port= attributes)
    Affected if Remoting ports are explicitly defined in the configuration
  4. Check port network binding
    Run 'netstat -an | findstr <port_number>' or 'Get-NetTCPConnection -LocalPort <port_number>' to see if the remoting port binds to 0.0.0.0 (all interfaces) rather than 127.0.0.1 (localhost only)
    Affected if The remoting port shows a local address of 0.0.0.0 or :: meaning it accepts external connections
  5. Verify network accessibility
    Use 'Test-NetConnection -Port <port_number> -ComputerName <server>' from an external system, or check firewall rules with 'netsh advfirewall firewall show rule name=all' to see if the port is allowed through Windows Firewall
    Affected if The remoting port is open in firewall rules and reachable from network hosts

A system is affected if RightFax is installed with .NET Remoting enabled and the remoting ports are bound to network-accessible addresses rather than localhost only.

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

Restrict network access to RightFax remoting ports by implementing firewall rules or network segmentation to block untrusted access; if possible, disable .NET Remoting entirely or apply vendor-supplied patches.

Have this fixed Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation8.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
21.0 hours of engineering $3,680
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,888.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-15610 — 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-2025-15610 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