Cyber BackupApplication · Aomei

CVE-2025-8610

CRITICAL · 9.8 CVSS v3.0 Published 2025-08-20
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
AOMEI Cyber Backup Missing Authentication for Critical Function Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of AOMEI Cyber Backup. Authentication is not required to exploit this vulnerability. The specific flaw exists within the StorageNode service, which listens on TCP port 9075 by default. The issue results from the lack of authentication prior to allowing access to functionality. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of SYSTEM. Was ZDI-CAN-26156.

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 confidence

AOMEI Cyber Backup's StorageNode service on TCP port 9075 lacks authentication checks before executing critical functions, allowing unauthenticated remote attackers to send specially crafted requests that result in arbitrary code execution with SYSTEM privileges.

MitigationApply vendor-provided patch immediately if available; as interim measure, restrict network access to port 9075 via firewall or disable the StorageNode service if not required.

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
Cyber BackupApplication
Affected:= 3.7.0

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
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
High
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.0/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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Verify AOMEI Cyber Backup installation and version
    Open Programs and Features (appwiz.cpl) or check C:\Program Files\AOMEI Cyber Backup for the installation folder. Look for version information in the program files or registry under HKLM\SOFTWARE\AOMEI\Cyber Backup.
    Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.7.0
  2. Confirm StorageNode service is running
    Open Services console (services.msc) and look for 'AOMEI Cyber Backup StorageNode' service, or run 'netstat -ano | findstr 9075' to check if TCP port 9075 is listening.
    Affected if The StorageNode service is running and port 9075 is listening on a network interface (0.0.0.0 or external IP)
  3. Check network exposure of port 9075
    From an external system or using nmap, scan the target IP address on TCP port 9075: 'nmap -p 9075 -sV <target_ip>'. Also check Windows Firewall rules via 'netsh advfirewall firewall show rule name=all' for inbound rules allowing port 9075.
    Affected if Port 9075 is accessible from untrusted networks or the firewall rule 'AOMEI Cyber Backup StorageNode' allows inbound connections from remote systems

Your environment is affected if AOMEI Cyber Backup version 3.7.0 is installed with the StorageNode service running and port 9075 exposed to the network without additional access controls.

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

Apply vendor-provided patch immediately if available; as interim measure, restrict network access to port 9075 via firewall or disable the StorageNode service if not required.

Fix this in Cyber Backup Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation4.0 h
  • Testing3.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
12.0 hours of engineering $2,130
Get help mitigating

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-8610 — 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-2025-8610 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