CVE-2025-8312
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 · uneditedDeadlock in PAM automatic check-in feature in Devolutions Server allows a password to remain valid beyond the end of its intended check-out period due to a deadlock occurring in the scheduling service.This issue affects the following version(s) : * Devolutions Server 2025.2.2.0 through 2025.2.5.0 * Devolutions Server 2025.1.12.0 and earlier
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 confidenceA deadlock in the PAM automatic check-in scheduling service causes passwords to remain valid beyond their intended check-out period. When a user checks out a password, the automatic check-in should return it after the configured period, but the deadlock prevents this from occurring, leaving passwords usable when they should have been automatically invalidated.
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< 2025.2.7.0CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 Devolutions Server versionCheck the installed version of Devolutions Server in the application or system information panel (typically found in Help > About or the Administration console). Compare the version number to the affected range: versions prior to 2025.2.7.0 are vulnerable.Affected if The installed version is below 2025.2.7.0
-
Confirm PAM module is in useVerify that the PAM (Privileged Access Management) module is actively used for managing privileged account credentials. Check if password check-out/check-in functionality is enabled in the Devolutions Server administration settings.Affected if PAM password check-out is enabled and passwords are being checked out by users or automated processes
-
Verify automatic check-in scheduling is configuredIn the PAM settings, locate the automatic check-in or scheduled check-in configuration. Determine if a time-based automatic check-in policy is defined for checked-out passwords.Affected if Automatic check-in scheduling is enabled with a defined time period for password return
-
Inspect for stale checked-out passwordsReview the list of currently checked-out passwords in the PAM vault. Identify any passwords that remain checked out beyond their configured check-in deadline or expected automatic return time.Affected if There are passwords checked out that have exceeded their intended check-in time but remain in checked-out state (indicating the deadlock is active)
A user is affected if they run Devolutions Server version below 2025.2.7.0 with PAM automatic check-in enabled, and passwords remain checked out past their intended expiration time.
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 · scoped2025.2.7.0
Apply vendor patches when available; in the interim, implement manual check-in procedures or disable automatic check-in and use manual expiration controls.
Devolutions Server 2025.2.7.0 or later
- 1. Back up the current Devolutions Server database and configuration files
- 2. Download Devolutions Server version 2025.2.7.0 or later from the official Devolutions website
- 3. Stop the Devolutions Server service
- 4. Run the installer/upgrade for version 2025.2.7.0
- 5. Follow the upgrade wizard prompts to complete the installation
- 6. Start the Devolutions Server service
- 7. Verify the PAM automatic check-in feature is functioning correctly
- 8. Test that passwords expire properly after their check-out period ends
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 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 $3,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-8312 — 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-2025-8312 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