CVE-2025-68670
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 · uneditedxrdp is an open source RDP server. xrdp before v0.10.5 contains an unauthenticated stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability. The issue stems from improper bounds checking when processing user domain information during the connection sequence. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on the target system. The vulnerability allows an attacker to overwrite the stack buffer and the return address, which could theoretically be used to redirect the execution flow. The impact of this vulnerability is lessened if a compiler flag has been used to build the xrdp executable with stack canary protection. If this is the case, a second vulnerability would need to be used to leak the stack canary value. Upgrade to version 0.10.5 to receive a patch. Additionally, do not rely on stack canary protection on production systems.
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 · high confidencexrdp before v0.10.5 contains an unauthenticated stack-based buffer overflow during user domain information processing in the connection sequence. The vulnerability lacks proper bounds checking, allowing attackers to overwrite stack buffers and return addresses for remote code execution. Stack canary protection during compilation reduces but does not eliminate the risk.
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= 11.0< 0.10.5CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Verify xrdp is installedRun 'dpkg -l | grep xrdp' on Debian/Ubuntu, or 'rpm -qa | grep xrdp' on RHEL/CentOS, or check for the binary at /usr/sbin/xrdpAffected if xrdp package or binary is found on the system
-
Retrieve installed xrdp versionRun 'xrdp -v' or 'xrdp --version', or use package manager: 'dpkg -l xrdp' (Debian) or 'rpm -qi xrdp' (RHEL)Affected if Version output shows a version number lower than 0.10.5
-
Confirm xrdp service is running and exposedRun 'systemctl status xrdp' to check service status, then 'ss -tlnp | grep 3389' or 'netstat -tlnp | grep 3389' to verify the service is listening on port 3389Affected if xrdp service is active and bound to a network interface, making it reachable for exploitation
-
Compare version against vulnerability rangeInterpret the version retrieved in step 2. The vulnerability affects all versions prior to 0.10.5, including 0.10.0 through 0.10.4Affected if Installed version is 0.10.4, 0.10.3, 0.10.2, 0.10.1, 0.10.0, or any 0.9.x version, or if version cannot be determined but xrdp is present on Debian 11
A system is affected if xrdp is installed and running with a version number lower than 0.10.5, exposing the vulnerable RDP connection processing code to network attackers.
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 · scoped0.10.5
Upgrade xrdp to version 0.10.5 immediately. Do not rely on compiler stack canary protection as a primary defense in production environments.
xrdp v0.10.5
- Upgrade xrdp to version 0.10.5 or later. On Debian systems, run: apt update && apt install xrdp
- Verify the installed version matches or exceeds 0.10.5 using: xrdp --version
- Restart the xrdp service after upgrade: systemctl restart xrdp
- Ensure the system is not exposed to untrusted networks since this is an unauthenticated vulnerability
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-68670 — 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-2025-68670 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