CVE-2025-67790
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in DriveLock 24.1 before 24.1.6, 24.2 before 24.2.7, and 25.1 before 25.1.5. An unprivileged user could cause occasionally a Blue Screen Of Death (BSOD) on Windows computers by using an IOCTL and an unterminated string.
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 confidenceDriveLock versions prior to 24.1.6, 24.2.7, and 25.1.5 contain a driver-level vulnerability where an unprivileged user can trigger a BSOD by sending an IOCTL request with an unterminated string. The driver fails to validate string length before processing the IOCTL, leading to a crash when the unterminated string is parsed.
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>= 24.1, < 24.1.6>= 24.2, < 24.2.7>= 25.1, < 25.1.5CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Verify DriveLock installationCheck for DriveLock installation by looking in Add/Remove Programs (appwiz.cpl) or checking for the DriveLock client executable in Program Files.Affected if DriveLock is not installed on the system, the vulnerability does not apply.
-
Retrieve installed DriveLock versionOpen the DriveLock client application and navigate to Help > About, or check the version property of the DriveLock executable in the installation directory.Affected if The exact version cannot be determined; the system may still be affected.
-
Compare version against affected rangesCompare the installed version to the vulnerable ranges: versions 24.1.x before 24.1.6, versions 24.2.x before 24.2.7, and versions 25.1.x before 25.1.5 are affected.Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: >= 24.1 and < 24.1.6, >= 24.2 and < 24.2.7, or >= 25.1 and < 25.1.5.
-
Verify driver is loadedOpen Device Manager, expand the System devices or Storage controllers section, and look for a DriveLock driver entry. Alternatively, run 'sc query drivelock' or 'driverquery | findstr -i drivelock' in an elevated command prompt.Affected if The DriveLock driver is loaded and the version is in the affected ranges, the system is vulnerable to the BSOD trigger.
A system is affected if DriveLock is installed with a version in the ranges 24.1.x < 24.1.6, 24.2.x < 24.2.7, or 25.1.x < 25.1.5 and the vulnerable driver is present.
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 · scoped24.1.624.2.725.1.5
Upgrade DriveLock to version 24.1.6, 24.2.7, or 25.1.5 or later. Until patched, monitor for suspicious IOCTL calls and consider restricting local user privileges as a defense-in-depth measure.
Upgrade to 24.1.6 (for 24.1.x line), 24.2.7 (for 24.2.x line), or 25.1.5 (for 25.1.x line) depending on your current major version
- 1. Identify the current installed version of DriveLock by checking the application or using 'drivelock --version' or checking the installed programs list.
- 2. If running version 24.1.x, upgrade to version 24.1.6 or later.
- 3. If running version 24.2.x, upgrade to version 24.2.7 or later.
- 4. If running version 25.1.x, upgrade to version 25.1.5 or later.
- 5. Verify the upgrade was successful by checking the new version number.
- 6. Test the system to ensure DriveLock functions normally after the update.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-67790 — 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-2025-67790 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