CVE-2025-2769
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 · uneditedBdrive NetDrive Uncontrolled Search Path Element Local Privilege Escalation Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows local attackers to escalate privileges on affected installations of Bdrive NetDrive. An attacker must first obtain the ability to execute low-privileged code on the target system in order to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the configuration of OpenSSL. The product loads an OpenSSL configuration file from an unsecured location. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code in the context of SYSTEM. Was ZDI-CAN-25295.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability in Bdrive NetDrive allows a local attacker with low-privileged code execution to escalate to SYSTEM privileges. The flaw exists because the product loads an OpenSSL configuration file from an unsecured, attacker-controllable location, likely the current working directory. By placing a malicious OpenSSL config file in a location where NetDrive executes, the attacker can cause the application to load arbitrary code with elevated privileges.
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= 3.17.960CVSS 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:3.0/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 installed NetDrive versionCheck the version of Bdrive NetDrive installed on the system. On Windows, check the program's properties in Add/Remove Programs, or inspect the executable file version property of the NetDrive application binary.Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.17.960 (the affected version).
-
Locate OpenSSL config file loaded by NetDriveRun NetDrive while monitoring which OpenSSL configuration file it loads. On Windows, use process monitoring tools (such as Process Monitor from Sysinternals) to capture file access events and identify the openssl.cnf or openssl.cfg file that NetDrive accesses on startup.Affected if NetDrive loads an OpenSSL configuration file from a user-writable location such as the current working directory, user temp folder, or other unsecured path rather than a secure program directory.
-
Inspect OpenSSL config file location permissionsCheck the filesystem permissions on the OpenSSL configuration file that NetDrive loads. Verify whether low-privileged users have write access to the directory containing this config file.Affected if The directory or file is writable by non-admin users, allowing an attacker with low-privileged code execution to replace or modify the OpenSSL config.
-
Verify OpenSSL config path is not hardcodedReview NetDrive configuration or examine how the application invokes OpenSSL. Check if the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable is set to a secure absolute path, or if the application specifies a config path via command line parameters.Affected if NetDrive does not specify a secure, absolute path for the OpenSSL configuration and instead relies on OpenSSL default search behavior, which checks the current working directory.
You are affected if NetDrive version 3.17.960 is installed and it loads an OpenSSL configuration file from a directory writable by low-privileged 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.
From vendor dataRemediate by configuring NetDrive to load the OpenSSL configuration from a secure, hardcoded absolute path (e.g., within the program directory) rather than from an unsecured search path, and verify the config file is owned by administrator with restricted permissions.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-2769 — 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-2025-2769 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