Azure Arc Agent Local Privilege Escalation: Patch and Hunt for EoP

Microsoft’s advisory record for the CVE identifier you supplied (CVE‑2025‑47989) does not resolve to a public MSRC advisory; however, a confirmed elevation‑of‑privilege (EoP) defect in the Azure Connected Machine (Azure Arc / azcmagent) family has been published, tracked in vendor advisories and industry feeds under closely related CVE identifiers and fixed in patched agent releases — defenders must treat the class of bug as high‑priority for patching, inventory, and hunting.

Background / Overview​

Azure Connected Machine Agent (commonly referred to as Azure Arc agent or azcmagent) is the on‑host component Microsoft ships to register Linux and Windows servers with Azure for hybrid management, extension deployment, and identity integration. On Windows, the agent installs under %ProgramFiles%\AzureConnectedMachineAgent and runs several services — including a local metadata service (HIMDS), extension manager, and management services — that collectively expose local control surfaces and token endpoints used by extensions and local processes. These integration points are why an EoP in the agent is more than a single‑host issue: it can enable attackers to pivot into management functions or misuse machine identities.
What matters operationally is straightforward: an attacker who already has some local ability — even a non‑privileged local account or a compromised automation job — can leverage an EoP to achieve SYSTEM/root and then tamper with local security, persistence, and cloud‑facing functions. Public advisories for the August–September 2025 Patch Tuesday cycle and vendor notes describe this class of agent weakness as an improper access control / local privilege escalation in the Connected Machine/Arc agent; Microsoft and several independent vulnerability databases have published fixes and remediation guidance.

---

What the record says (verification and naming confusion)​

• The specific CVE you supplied, CVE‑2025‑47989, does not appear in the expected MSRC advisory index when searched; that can indicate a typo, a remapped identifier, or a vendor-side consolidation under a different CVE. Public vulnerability feeds and incident reports for the agent commonly reference CVE identifiers such as CVE‑2025‑49692 (Azure Connected Machine Agent — improper access control / local elevation). Administrators should therefore rely on the vendor’s Security Update Guide (MSRC) and product KB mapping to confirm the correct CVE/Kb/agent version for their environment rather than trusting a single third‑party label.
• Microsoft’s agent release notes explicitly mention resolving an Azure Connected Machine Agent EoP issue in earlier agent releases and recommend upgrading to the latest agent versions available via Microsoft Update, the Microsoft Download Center or the Update Catalog. That vendor confirmation (agent release notes and update guidance) is the authoritative remediation path defenders should follow.

Note: vulnerability identifiers sometimes change, are grouped, or are presented differently across feeds (MSRC, NVD, vendor CSRF/CSAF exports, and third‑party aggregators). When tracking a specific CVE number, always cross‑check the MSRC advisory entry and the KB/build list for your OS/agent SKU to avoid false negatives in patch automation.

---

Technical summary — how the agent EoP typically works​

The public vendor description for the agent classifies the flaw as improper access control that enables local elevation of privilege. Independent technical writeups and patch notes describe the practical mechanics as one of the following (these are the common patterns observed in agent/service EoP bugs and match the vendor language and industry analysis):

• Improper validation or sanitization of inputs passed to privileged components (command‑injection patterns in installers or agent scripts).
• Incorrectly enforced permissions on local endpoints (HIMDS / local metadata) that allow non‑privileged local processes to request or perform sensitive operations.
• Race conditions/use‑after‑free or synchronization errors in privileged services that can be manipulated by timing and local orchestration to gain control over privileged flows.

In plain language: the agent exposes privileged functionality and, with insufficient guards, a local actor can coerce that functionality to run in the agent’s privileged context. Successful exploitation is local (requires the attacker to run code or interact locally) but the impact is high: SYSTEM/root on the host and potential misuse of machine‑assigned managed identities or extension management capabilities.

---

Exploitability and risk profile​

• Attack vector: Local — the attacker must be authenticated on the host or able to execute code locally. This is not a remote, unauthenticated wormable flaw in normal descriptions.
• Privileges required to start: commonly low (standard user) in public tracker summaries — making it attractive if an adversary achieves an initial foothold via phishing, malicious software, or compromised automation jobs.
• Complexity: Timing‑dependent or logic‑dependent in many cases. Race/window exploitation can be nontrivial but is routinely automated by skilled attackers. Historical exploit pipelines show EoP bugs in privileged services are quickly weaponized once technical details leak.
• Impact: SYSTEM/root, full file system and registry control, ability to disable EDR/AV, create persistent services/drivers, and potentially request/use managed identity tokens via local metadata endpoints for cloud escalation.

Operational takeaway: even though the flaw is local, its consequence is systemic — patched quickly and prioritized in enterprise remediation cycles.

---

Patch status, verification, and official guidance​

• Microsoft has published fixes for the Azure Connected Machine Agent and documents agent release notes and MSI/upgrade guidance via the official agent release pages. Administrators should obtain the fixed agent from Microsoft Update, the Microsoft Update Catalog, or by downloading the MSI from official product pages.
• Third‑party vulnerability trackers and advisories (industry writeups, EUVDB/rapid vulnerability databases) echo the vendor guidance and often enumerate the affected agent/agentVersion ranges and the CVSS score used by their tracker. Treat the vendor advisory as the canonical mapping between CVE and the exact build/KB you must deploy.
• If a CVE number you were given (for example, CVE‑2025‑47989) cannot be found in MSRC or NVD, do not assume the absence of risk — instead, search the MSRC for product names (Azure Connected Machine, Azure Arc, azcmagent) and the date range that corresponds to your vendor patch window to identify the correct advisory. Multiple public threads have warned of identifier fragmentation across trackers; relying on agentVersion/Kb mapping is safer than a single CVE label.

---

Detection and hunt guidance (practical steps defenders can use now)​

Inventory and discovery are the first and highest‑leverage items:

• At scale in Azure: run an Azure Resource Graph query to list Arc‑connected machines and the agentVersion property — this will produce a prioritized list of hosts to patch. Example (conceptual): resources | where type =~ 'microsoft.hybridcompute/machines' | extend agentVersion = properties.agentVersion | project name, agentVersion, resourceGroup, subscriptionId. Use this output to target older agentVersion values for remediation.
• On Windows hosts: run azcmagent version to display the installed agent version. Inspect agent paths and logs under %ProgramFiles%\AzureConnectedMachineAgent and %ProgramData%\AzureConnectedMachineAgent for indicators of tampering or unexpected behavior.

Key EDR/hunt signals to consider:

• Unexpected requests to localhost metadata endpoints (HIMDS) from non‑system accounts or unusual processes.
• Execution of azcmagent.exe or HIMDS‑related binaries by non‑admin users or parent processes that indicate command‑injection attempts.
• Creation of new services, scheduled tasks, or changes to agent binaries correlated with azcmagent activity.
• Evidence of managed identity token requests or unusual token issuance in extension logs (if the host uses machine‑assigned managed identities).

Sample forensic triage checklist:

• Preserve agent logs: collect %ProgramData%\AzureConnectedMachineAgent\Log and extension logs, plus azcmagent logs.
• Export EDR telemetry for process creations and parent/child process relationships involving azcmagent, himds, gcarcservice, and extension installers.
• Check for suspicious network activity from the host to management or cloud endpoints that could indicate token exfiltration or back‑channel control.
• If token abuse is suspected, rotate any impacted credentials and review RBAC for the machine identity.

---

Immediate remediation playbook (first 24–72 hours)​

• Inventory first: identify all hosts running the Azure Connected Machine Agent using endpoint inventories, Azure Resource Graph, SCCM/ConfigMgr/Sentinel queries, and the azcmagent CLI. Prioritize based on exposure (bastion/RDP hosts, jump boxes, management servers), agentVersion, and whether a machine‑assigned managed identity exists.
• Patch: apply the vendor‑published security update for the agent. Use Microsoft Update, the Update Catalog, or the latest MSI to upgrade azcmagent at scale through your normal patch management pipeline (WSUS/Intune/ConfigMgr). Confirm success via azcmagent version and Resource Graph.
• Compensate if patching will be delayed: temporarily restrict access to agent control endpoints; enforce host firewall rules to limit local service exposure to untrusted accounts; and harden where possible the environment that allows installers to be invoked (CI/CD runners, build agents, multi‑user consoles).
• Monitor and hunt for exploitation: implement the EDR detections above and raise immediate incident response if any of the hunt indicators trigger. If exploitation is suspected, collect full host images and logs for forensic analysis, and treat any machine‑assigned credentials as potentially compromised.
• Revalidate: after patching, re‑scan the environment for agentVersion and confirm that no hosts remain on vulnerable builds. Keep an eye on vendor channels for any additional hotfixes or follow‑on advisories.

---

Operational impact scenarios — why this matters to enterprises​

• Jump boxes and RDP/VDI hosts: a low‑privileged account on any host that also acts as a management jump host can be escalated into full admin control of other managed systems. The presence of Arc on such hosts increases the blast radius.
• CI/CD runners and build farms: shared runners executing the agent installer or invoking agent management commands are attractive targets; a single malicious job or container escape can provide the local foothold needed to trigger EoP.
• Machines with machine‑assigned managed identities: a successful local escalation can enable token requests from HIMDS that let an attacker access cloud resources or deploy malicious extensions — amplifying local compromise into cloud asset misuse. Hunt specifically for unusual token requests in agent logs and rotate secrets if abuse is suspected.

---

Critical analysis — strengths of the current vendor response and outstanding risks​

Strengths

• Vendor remediation and clear upgrade paths: Microsoft documents the fix and distributes patched azcmagent builds via standard update channels; agent release notes explicitly list EoP fixes and recommended agent versions. This gives operations teams a clear technical remediation to apply at scale.
• Good telemetry options exist for at‑scale verification: Azure Resource Graph exposes agentVersion metadata, which lets cloud governance teams quickly detect unpatched machines across subscriptions. That’s a high‑value control for enterprise patch validation.

Risks and gaps

• Identifier fragmentation and tracking confusion: third‑party feeds sometimes map the same underlying bug to different CVE numbers or label similar agent bugs with adjacent identifiers. This leads to the operational risk that automated patching or compliance checks miss the right KB or build because they relied on a single CVE string — a dangerous failure mode for large fleets. Administrators must therefore map by vendor KB/agentVersion, not only CVE string.
• Local attack vector underestimation: because the attack requires local access, organizations sometimes deprioritize EoP flaws. That’s a mistake — EoP bugs are core chaining points in real‑world attacks and are frequently exploited after initial access via phishing or malware. The Arc agent’s integration points (HIMDS, extension manager) make an EoP particularly valuable to adversaries.
• Detection blind spots: not all EDR tools are tuned to watch for azcmagent as a suspicious process, and default agent logs are not always forwarded to central logging. Ensuring these signals are collected and correlated is necessary to detect post‑exploit activity early.

Caveat on specific numeric claims: because the identifier you quoted (CVE‑2025‑47989) is not resolvable in the MSRC/primary feeds searched, treat any numerical attribution as provisional until vendor MSRC/Kb mapping is confirmed. Mistyped or remapped CVE IDs are common and can mislead response if relied upon alone.

---

Recommended long‑term actions and hardening​

• Enforce least privilege: limit accounts that can run installers or elevation workflows on management hosts and CI/CD runners. Use just‑in‑time elevation and admin approval workflows where possible.
• Harden agent install workflows: restrict who can run azcmagent install/uninstall scripts, and require signed, verified packages in automation pipelines.
• Centralize logging for agent artifacts: forward azcmagent logs, HIMDS access logs, and extension manager logs to SIEM/EDR for long‑term correlation and hunting.
• Automate inventory and remediation: use Azure Resource Graph and endpoint management tools (SCCM/Intune) to ensure agentVersion drift is caught and remediated automatically.
• Incident playbooks: create a specific Arc/agent compromise playbook that includes steps to rotate machine identities, revoke and reissue credentials, and validate extension integrity post‑remediation.

---

Conclusion​

The essence of the situation is this: there is an industry‑validated elevation‑of‑privilege flaw affecting the Azure Connected Machine / Azure Arc agent family that Microsoft has addressed with patched agent builds and security updates. The exact numeric CVE you provided (CVE‑2025‑47989) could not be found in MSRC search results and likely reflects an identifier confusion; nonetheless, the operational reality — a local EoP in the azcmagent that can be weaponized to achieve SYSTEM or root and to abuse cloud integration points — is confirmed by vendor release notes and independent security trackers. Administrators must therefore prioritize inventory, patching (via Microsoft Update / Update Catalog), and active hunting for signs of exploitation rather than focusing on any single CVE string.
Follow the vendor’s KB and agent release notes for the precise build numbers to install, apply updates through normal enterprise channels, and apply the detection playbook described above to reduce risk and detect any attempted exploitation promptly.

---

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center