CVE-2026-57919
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 · uneditedPBackupVSS.exe in Matrix42 Empirum before 25.5 and 26.x before 26.2 creates a named pipe (\\.\pipe\PBackupVSS) with a DACL that grants GENERIC_READ and GENERIC_WRITE permissions to all authenticated users. A low-privileged local attacker can connect to this pipe and send crafted IPC messages to trigger execution of arbitrary commands with SYSTEM privileges via an untrusted search path. This allows privilege escalation by placing a malicious shadow.exe in a controlled working directory.
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 confidenceMatrix42 Empirum's PBackupVSS.exe creates a named pipe (\\.\pipe\PBackupVSS) with overly permissive DACL granting GENERIC_READ and GENERIC_WRITE to all authenticated users. A low-privileged local attacker can connect to this pipe and send crafted IPC messages to execute arbitrary commands with SYSTEM privileges by placing a malicious shadow.exe in a controlled working directory (untrusted search path).
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/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 if PBackupVSS.exe is installedSearch for PBackupVSS.exe in typical installation directories such as C:\Program Files\Matrix42\ or C:\Program Files (x86)\Matrix42\, or use 'Get-Process PBackupVSS' in PowerShell to check if the process is running.Affected if PBackupVSS.exe is found installed or running on the system
-
Verify the named pipe existsCheck for the presence of the named pipe \\.\pipe\PBackupVSS using PowerShell command: '[System.IO.Directory]::GetFiles("\\.\pipe\") | Where-Object { $_ -like "*PBackupVSS*" }' or use the 'pipelist' Sysinternals tool.Affected if The named pipe \\.\pipe\PBackupVSS exists on the system
-
Inspect named pipe DACL permissionsUse Sysinternals PipeList or accesschk.exe to examine the security descriptor of the PBackupVSS named pipe. Run: 'accesschk.exe -l \\.\pipe\PBackupVSS' or inspect via PowerShell using .NET System.IO.Pipes classes.Affected if The DACL grants GENERIC_READ and GENERIC_WRITE to BUILTIN\Authenticated Users or Everyone group
-
Check for untrusted search path vulnerabilityIdentify the working directory from which PBackupVSS.exe runs (check via Process Explorer or Task Manager). Verify if a low-privileged user can write to that directory or a parent directory where shadow.exe could be placed.Affected if The working directory or any accessible parent directory is writable by low-privileged users and shadow.exe could be planted
-
Verify if PBackupVSS is running as SYSTEMCheck the user context of the PBackupVSS.exe process using Task Manager, Process Explorer, or PowerShell: 'Get-Process PBackupVSS | Select-Object ProcessName,Username'.Affected if PBackupVSS.exe runs under the SYSTEM or another high-privilege account
The system is affected if PBackupVSS.exe is installed, the PBackupVSS named pipe exists with overly permissive DACL, and the working directory is writable by low-privileged users enabling untrusted search path exploitation.
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 · scopedUpgrade Matrix42 Empirum to version 25.5 or later, or 26.2 or later, to remediate the insecure named pipe permissions and untrusted search path vulnerability.
Upgrade to Matrix42 Empirum 25.5 (for 25.x branch) or 26.2 (for 26.x branch)
- 1. Identify the current version of Matrix42 Empirum installed in the environment
- 2. Determine which release branch (25.x or 26.x) is in use
- 3. Download the corresponding fixed version: Empirum 25.5 or Empirum 26.2 from the official Matrix42 portal
- 4. Review the Matrix42 Empirum upgrade documentation for prerequisites and procedures
- 5. Create a backup of the current configuration following vendor best practices
- 6. Execute the upgrade to the fixed version
- 7. Verify the PBackupVSS.exe named pipe permissions have been corrected after upgrade
- 8. Confirm the installation was successful and services are running properly
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-2026-57919 — 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-2026-57919 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