CDPSvc Memory Corruption: Local Privilege Escalation and CVE Fragmentation (Mid 2025)

  • Thread Author
A newly reported vulnerability tied to the Windows Connected Devices Platform Service (Cdpsvc) has raised alarms for administrators and defenders: while public trackers and community analyses describe memory‑corruption defects in CDPSvc that can lead to privilege escalation or execution under SYSTEM, there is fragmentation in CVE identifiers across mid‑2025 advisories and the specific CVE you provided (CVE-2025-55326) should be verified directly against Microsoft’s Security Update Guide and KB mapping before treating it as the authoritative remediation token.

Background​

What is the Connected Devices Platform Service (CDPSvc)?​

The Connected Devices Platform Service (service name: CDPSvc) is a Windows system service responsible for a broad set of device brokering functions — Nearby Sharing, device pairing and discovery, companion device scenarios, and other device‑to‑system interactions. Because CDPSvc typically runs in an elevated context on Windows client and server SKUs, defects in its memory handling or synchronization code can yield high‑impact results when exploited.

Why CDPSvc matters from an attack surface perspective​

CDPSvc is widely present across Windows 10/11 and many Windows Server builds, and it interfaces with both user‑mode callers and privileged system components. That mixture of asynchronous callbacks, device brokering IPC, and elevated privileges makes CDPSvc a sensitive component: concurrency mistakes or memory‑safety faults here are particularly valuable to attackers because they can be chained from a low‑privilege foothold to full system compromise. Several community analyses during the 2025 patch cycles documented this pattern.

Summary of the reported issue​

Security trackers and vendor advisories for mid‑2025 report a class of CDPSvc defects that are generally described as use‑after‑free (UAF) or race‑condition related memory corruption in the Connected Devices Platform Service. These defects have been characterized in public writeups as allowing an authorized local attacker (often a standard user account) to escalate privileges to NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM when successfully exploited. Microsoft published remediation as part of the cumulative update cycles in mid‑2025; however, multiple CVE entries with overlapping descriptions were published across July–October 2025, creating mapping fragmentation in third‑party feeds. Administrators are therefore advised to map CVE identifiers to Microsoft KB/build numbers in the Security Update Guide and Update Catalog before enforcing automated remediation.
Important caveat: the descriptor you provided (CVE-2025-55326, described as Cdpsvc Remote Code Execution) does not appear verbatim in the internal trackers returned here; the public summaries emphasize local elevation‑of‑privilege scenarios and UAF mechanics rather than an unauthenticated remote code execution vector. This discrepancy must be resolved by checking the MSRC advisory and the specific KB mapping for your OS builds. If a vendor advisory explicitly lists RCE as the impact for CVE‑2025‑55326, treat that as authoritative — but if the vendor lists an EoP/UAF, respond accordingly.

Technical analysis​

Vulnerability class: use‑after‑free and race conditions​

The dominant technical narrative across independent analyses describes the root cause as a use‑after‑free (CWE‑416) combined with timing/race weaknesses (CWE‑362) in CDPSvc’s device brokering code paths. In device discovery and IPC flows, CDPSvc allocates and destroys objects rapidly; if lifecycle synchronization is imperfect, a freed object can remain referenced and later dereferenced, resulting in memory corruption. With controlled timing (heap grooming) and auxiliary information leaks, an attacker can convert that corruption into a write‑what‑where primitive or vtable overwrite, enabling control‑flow redirection under the service’s elevated privileges.

RCE vs EoP: understanding the distinction​

  • Elevation‑of‑Privilege (EoP): Typical CDPSvc defects documented in mid‑2025 are described as allowing a local, authorized user to escalate privileges to SYSTEM. The access vector is local, and the vulnerability is valuable in post‑compromise chains because it turns a low‑privilege foothold into full host control.
  • Remote Code Execution (RCE): A true RCE that is unauthenticated and remotely reachable would have substantially higher immediate mass‑exploitation risk (wormable characteristics). The majority of CDPSvc advisories in the referenced window do not present this as an unauthenticated network RCE; rather they emphasize local interaction and timing control. If a specific CVE (such as CVE‑2025‑55326) claims RCE, that assertion should be cross‑checked against MSRC and other authoritative advisories — public aggregators have shown fragmented and sometimes inconsistent entries for related CDPSvc issues.

Exploitability: prerequisites and complexity​

  • Access vector: Local — the attacker must be able to run code or interact with the target system. This means initial access is required via phishing, malicious installers, or another local code‑execution foothold.
  • Required privileges: Often low (standard user). That makes the bug attractive as a post‑compromise escalation tool.
  • Complexity: Exploiting a UAF combined with race conditions requires precise timing and heap manipulation. Skilled exploit developers and automated frameworks can make this reliable once a proof‑of‑concept is published; historically, such UAFs have been weaponized quickly after public disclosure.

Affected systems and patch status​

Scope​

Independent trackers and community reports indicate the CDPSvc flaws impacted multiple Windows client and server SKUs prior to the mid‑2025 cumulative update cycle. The exact affected builds and the KB articles that remediate the defect vary by product branch (Windows 10/11, various Server builds). Because of the fragmentation of CVE entries in public feeds, administrators should identify affected hosts by build number and then consult Microsoft’s Security Update Guide or the Microsoft Update Catalog to obtain the correct KB(s) to deploy.

Patch availability and mapping​

Microsoft released patches for related CDPSvc defects in mid‑2025 cumulative updates. Multiple community advisories tie the fixes to the July 2025 cumulative update set, but third‑party CVE aggregators display inconsistent CVE→KB mappings. Your enterprise patch pipeline should map vendor KBs to build numbers and not rely solely on a single CVE string reported by a third party. Validate the LCU/SSU (Latest Cumulative Update / Servicing Stack Update) combination before deployment and update golden images to avoid reintroducing unpatched systems.

Detection, telemetry, and forensic guidance​

Observable signals of attempted exploitation​

Memory‑corruption exploitation is noisy in many cases. The most reliable early indicators include:
  • Repeated crashes or restarts of CDPSvc or the svchost instance hosting it (Service Control Manager events and Application Error logs).
  • Suspicious process ancestry: user‑level processes initiating interactions with privileged services followed by unexpected SYSTEM processes, scheduled tasks, or new services.
  • EDR signatures indicating in‑memory tampering, heap spray patterns, or token manipulations immediately following service instability.

Hunting guidance (practical queries and rules)​

  • Alert on multiple CDPSvc crashes in a short time window (Service Control Manager and Application logs).
  • Correlate any post‑crash created services, scheduled tasks, or unexpected processes running as SYSTEM to identify possible successful escalations.
  • Add EDR rules for suspicious local IPC interactions that precede svchost host instability or unusual memory access patterns tied to CDP interfaces.

Forensics if exploitation is suspected​

If you suspect a host was exploited, preserve volatile evidence before remediation:
  • Capture a full memory image (RAM) and relevant process dumps.
  • Export EDR timelines, Windows Event logs (Application, System, Security), and any process creation logs.
  • Snapshot the disk (or at minimum, shadow copies) and inventory installed KBs/build numbers.
    Collecting these artifacts prior to patching or rebooting preserves forensic context and increases the chance of reconstructing an exploit chain.

Immediate mitigations and recommended actions​

Priority checklist for enterprise admins​

  • Inventory: Query endpoints for build number and installed LCUs/KBs; identify machines where CDPSvc is present. Use your endpoint management tools to automate this.
  • Map: Use Microsoft’s Security Update Guide / Update Catalog to map the CVE (or, better, the vendor KBs) to each build in your estate. Avoid relying solely on third‑party CVE feeds.
  • Test: Stage the vendor update in a representative test group for 24–72 hours. Validate functionality for device‑dependent workflows (Nearby Sharing, Bluetooth, companion devices).
  • Deploy: Roll out patches using WSUS/SCCM/Intune or your standard update pipeline in prioritized waves (admin workstations, jump boxes, RDP hosts first). Confirm reboots and LCU/SSU application.
  • Validate: Re‑scan with vulnerability scanners and verify the KBs and build numbers are updated.

Short‑term compensations if you cannot patch immediately​

  • Temporarily disable CDPSvc on endpoints for which device‑connectivity features are non‑essential. This can break Nearby Sharing and pairing workflows, so test before wide application. Example PowerShell commands (validate in lab): Stop‑Service -Name CDPSvc -Force; Set‑Service -Name CDPSvc -StartupType Disabled. Re‑enable after patching.
  • Enforce least privilege and limit local admin rights. Application allow‑listing (AppLocker or Windows Defender Application Control) reduces the chance an untrusted binary can be executed to attempt exploitation.
  • Increase telemetry retention and activate EDR detection playbooks focusing on CDPSvc instability and post‑crash SYSTEM activity.

Operational risk analysis: strengths and weaknesses​

Strengths (mitigating factors)​

  • Vendor patching: Microsoft distributed fixes in the mid‑2025 update cycles, giving organizations a direct remediation path. Administrators with rapid update cadences can neutralize the risk quickly.
  • Local attack vector: Many of the documented CDPSvc defects require local interaction, limiting the immediate wormable threat profile to unauthenticated remote attackers.

Weaknesses and exposures​

  • Broad presence of CDPSvc: Since CDPSvc ships on many client and server SKUs, an unpatched fleet represents a large attack surface for lateral operations and privilege escalation.
  • CVE fragmentation: Multiple overlapping CVEs and inconsistent third‑party mappings in public feeds can confuse automated patching and reporting. Map CVEs to vendor KBs to avoid mispatching.
  • Chaining risk: Local EoP bugs are highly prized by attackers as the final step to SYSTEM. If initial access controls are weak, an adversary can exploit these bugs to fully compromise hosts and disable defenses.

Practical recommendations and hardening roadmap​

  • Enforce least privilege: Remove local admin rights from general users and apply privileged access workstations for sensitive activities.
  • Application control: Implement AppLocker or Windows Defender Application Control to reduce the risk of arbitrary local code execution that could trigger a local exploit.
  • Image hygiene: Inject the applicable cumulative updates and SSUs into golden images and offline media to prevent reintroducing vulnerable systems in new deployments.
  • Telemetry and detection investment: Tune EDR and SIEM to surface service crashes, unusual SYSTEM activity, and suspicious post‑crash artifacts. Create playbooks to capture volatile evidence before remediation.
  • Patch automation: Modify automation to reconcile CVE IDs against Microsoft KBs and build numbers as a single source of truth. This avoids automation failures when third‑party feeds fragment identifiers.

Verification, uncertainties, and caveats​

  • Confirm the CVE: The public trackers and Microsoft’s Security Update Guide are the authoritative sources for CVE→KB mappings. The documents reviewed for this article repeatedly caution that third‑party CVE aggregators showed fragmentation and inconsistent CVE assignments for CDPSvc issues in mid‑2025. Do not assume a single CVE string from a third party is correct for your build — validate against the MSRC advisory and Update Catalog.
  • RCE claims should be validated: Many independent analyses describe CDPSvc defects as local UAF/EoP vectors rather than unauthenticated remote RCEs. If you encounter a feed claiming RCE for CVE‑2025‑55326, confirm the exact vendor wording and KB mapping before adjusting your severity assessment. Treat any claim of in‑the‑wild exploitation as provisional until corroborated by vendor incident reports or national CERT advisories.

Conclusion​

The Connected Devices Platform Service remains a high‑value target because it bridges user interactions and privileged system contexts. The mid‑2025 CDPSvc advisories document use‑after‑free and race‑condition memory corruption bugs that allow local privilege escalation to SYSTEM, and Microsoft released patches in the relevant cumulative updates. However, public CVE fragmentation across third‑party trackers complicates automated remediation; organizations should map vulnerabilities to Microsoft KBs and update golden images, enforce least privilege, and tune EDR hunts for CDPSvc instability and post‑crash SYSTEM behavior. If your records list CVE‑2025‑55326 for a Cdpsvc RCE specifically, validate that identifier against Microsoft’s Security Update Guide and KBs before acting — the vendor mapping is the definitive source for remediation and risk classification.
Appendix: Quick admin checklist
  • Inventory builds and installed updates across endpoints.
  • Cross‑reference each build to Microsoft’s Security Update Guide for the exact KB(s).
  • Test and deploy cumulative updates via existing WSUS/SCCM/Intune pipelines; validate reboots and LCU/SSU installation.
  • If patching is delayed, consider temporarily disabling CDPSvc on low‑risk systems while confirming the business impact.
  • Hunt for repeated CDPSvc crashes and anomalous SYSTEM activity; capture volatile evidence before remediation if exploitation is suspected.
Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center
 
Click to expand...
A critical use‑after‑free vulnerability in the Windows Connected Devices Platform Service (CDPSvc) has been publicly recorded and tied to privilege‑escalation and availability risks across multiple Windows client and server SKUs; organizations must treat the CDP/Cdpsvc family of defects as high‑priority, verify the exact CVE→KB mapping for their installed builds, and apply vendor updates or compensating controls immediately.

Background / Overview​

The Windows Connected Devices Platform Service (service name: CDPSvc) provides device‑brokering and proximity features such as Nearby Sharing, device pairing, and other connected‑device UX pathways. Because CDPSvc runs in elevated contexts on many Windows installations, memory‑safety defects in this component can yield powerful escalation paths when exploited. Multiple mid‑2025 vulnerability advisories across vendor and community trackers describe defects in CDPSvc as use‑after‑free (UAF) or race/synchronization issues that can lead to memory corruption and, in some variants, local elevation of privileges to NT AUTHORITY\SYSTEM.
Public advisories and commercial vulnerability databases link patch availability to Microsoft cumulative updates distributed during the 2025 mid‑year update cycles, but third‑party feeds have shown fragmentation across several closely related CVE identifiers. This fragmentation means a single CVE string (for example, CVE‑2025‑55326 as supplied) may not map cleanly to the KB that applies to a given OS build; administrators are advised to validate the vendor’s Security Update Guide for authoritative KB mapping before automating remediation.

What the vulnerability is (plain language)​

  • At root, the defect is a memory‑corruption condition that public trackers and vendor summaries describe as a use‑after‑free or synchronization/race‑condition bug in CDPSvc.
  • When a UAF is present, an object is deallocated while code still holds a reference; if an attacker influences allocation patterns or timing, the freed region can be reallocated with attacker‑controlled data and later dereferenced, producing undefined behavior from crashes to full control‑flow hijack.
  • The attack vector documented for the CDPSvc family is typically local (an attacker must be able to run code or otherwise interact locally). That places the flaw in the post‑compromise escalation category, not a remote wormable RCE by default.
These characteristics make the vulnerability significant: although exploitation requires a prior foothold, successful exploitation commonly results in SYSTEM privileges — enabling disabling of defenses, persistence, data theft, and lateral movement.

Technical analysis​

How a use‑after‑free in CDPSvc becomes an elevation‑of‑privilege​

CDPSvc manages many short‑lived objects during device discovery, pairing, and IPC. Those workloads produce asynchronous callbacks and concurrent threads — fertile ground for lifecycle and synchronization mistakes. A simplified exploitation chain looks like this:
  • Trigger CDPSvc operations that allocate transient objects (device handles, session structs).
  • Force a timing window (race) that causes the service to free an object while an attacker‑controlled reference remains live.
  • Reallocate the freed heap slot with attacker data (heap grooming), then provoke the service to dereference the stale pointer.
  • Convert the resulting corruption into a controlled modification of program state (vtable overwrite, function pointer patch) and gain code‑control or token manipulation to impersonate SYSTEM.
This is the canonical UAF→EoP pattern seen in several 2025 CDPSvc advisories and independent analyses. Exploitation complexity is non‑trivial (timing, heap grooming, and orchestration), yet historical examples show skilled attackers and automation can make such chains reliable once technical details or public proof‑of‑concepts appear.

Variants observed: DoS vs Elevation​

Not every CDPSvc entry is the same. Public trackers and advisories in 2025 recorded both:
  • Denial‑of‑Service (DoS) variants: Race conditions or resource‑consumption bugs causing service crashes or hangs; often network‑triggerable and scored for high availability impact. These were widely reported in January 2025 entries for CDPSvc.
  • Use‑after‑free (UAF) EoP variants: Local, authenticated primitives that can escalate a local user to SYSTEM when successfully exploited. These were tied to the July–October 2025 update cycles in several advisories.
Because different CVE IDs and trackers sometimes intermix descriptions, treat any CDPSvc report as part of a family of related defects and validate the exact CVE/KD/applicability with vendor guidance.

Exploitability and prerequisites​

  • Access vector: Local (attacker must interact with the host); some DoS variants have network‑vector characteristics but the UAF EoP class is local.
  • Privileges required: Typically low (standard user) for the starting point in many records, increasing attractiveness post‑foothold.
  • Complexity: Moderate to high technical complexity due to timing and heap manipulation, but automation and skilled exploit devs lower the effective barrier after disclosure.
  • Real‑world exploitation: As of aggregated advisory coverage in mid/late 2025, no universally corroborated large‑scale in‑the‑wild exploitation was reported for the UAF CDPSvc family, though PoCs historically appear quickly after public disclosure and opportunistic attackers adapt them rapidly. Treat unpatched hosts as high‑risk.

Affected products, patches, and the CVE→KB mapping problem​

Public vulnerability inventories indicate CDPSvc fixes apply broadly across supported Windows 10, Windows 11, and recent Windows Server branches. However, a major operational complication has been fragmentation of CVE identifiers across third‑party feeds: multiple closely related CDPSvc CVEs were visible in July–October 2025 with nearly identical descriptions. That fragmentation can break automated remediation pipelines that match only on CVE strings.
Best practice: always reconcile any CVE entry against Microsoft’s Security Update Guide and the Microsoft Update Catalog to get the authoritative list of KBs and build applicability for your specific OS SKU. Do not rely solely on third‑party aggregator CVE strings when deciding which patch to deploy.

Immediate mitigations and operational checklist​

Organizations should treat this CDPSvc family as a high‑priority patching item and execute the following step‑by‑step remediation checklist:
  • Inventory: Export a list of endpoints and servers, including OS build numbers and installed cumulative updates. Use management tooling to filter by CDPSvc presence.
  • Verify mapping: Consult Microsoft’s Security Update Guide and Update Catalog to map the reported CVE (or related CDP advisories) to the exact KB(s) for each build. Do not assume one CVE maps to every SKU.
  • Test: Apply the vendor KB in a representative test ring (24–72 hours) to confirm no regressions for critical workloads.
  • Deploy: Push updates via WSUS, SCCM/ConfigMgr, Intune, or your enterprise patch pipeline; prioritize exposed hosts and high‑value administrator endpoints first.
  • Validate: Reboot as required, confirm the LCU/SSU presence and service behavior, and re‑scan vulnerability posture to ensure remediation success. Example validation commands include checking installed packages or HotFix entries via PowerShell (Get‑HotFix) or DISM workflows.
Short‑term compensations if you cannot patch immediately:
  • Temporarily disable CDPSvc on hosts that do not require connected‑device features. Example PowerShell commands used by administrators include:
  • Stop‑Service -Name CDPSvc -Force
  • Set‑Service -Name CDPSvc -StartupType Disabled
  • Re‑enable after patching: Set‑Service -Name CDPSvc -StartupType Manual; Start‑Service -Name CDPSvc
  • Note: Disabling CDPSvc will break Nearby Sharing, some Bluetooth workflows, and other convenience features — test first.
  • Enforce least‑privilege: Remove unnecessary local admin rights and use Privileged Access Workstations (PAWs) for sensitive tasks.
  • Application control: Implement AppLocker or Windows Defender Application Control to reduce the chance of untrusted local code appearing.
  • Network segmentation and host‑firewalls: Isolate high‑value hosts and constrain lateral movement paths.

Detection, telemetry, and incident response​

UAF exploitation often produces noisy precursor signals. Detection guidance for EDR and SIEM teams:
  • Monitor for repeated CDPSvc crashes or Service Control Manager errors (Event IDs such as 7031 / 7034), particularly correlated across many hosts or within narrow time windows.
  • Alert on unexpected SYSTEM process activity immediately following CDPSvc instability: new services, scheduled tasks created as SYSTEM, or sudden SYSTEM‑level process creations.
  • Watch for suspicious parent/child process trees where non‑privileged user processes cause privileged changes or token manipulations.
  • Hunt for memory‑corruption indicators surfaced by EDR (heap corruption, code injection into svchost‑hosted services) and correlate them with CDPSvc activity.
If compromise is suspected, preserve volatile artifacts before remediation:
  • Collect memory images, EDR timelines, and relevant Windows Event logs.
  • Snapshot endpoints and isolate them to prevent further lateral movement.
  • Record installed package lists and pre‑patch state; if possible, obtain forensic images prior to rebooting or applying hotfixes that may alter evidentiary data.

Risk analysis: strengths, weaknesses, and long‑term implications​

Strengths (what reduces immediate risk)​

  • Vendor fixes exist; Microsoft published cumulative updates addressing CDPSvc defects during 2025 update cycles, giving organizations a direct remediation path.
  • The UAF EoP class is typically local, limiting large‑scale remote worming unless chained with another remote exploit. That buys defenders a window to act.

Weaknesses (what increases risk)​

  • Broad deployability: CDPSvc is present on many Windows client and server SKUs by default, enlarging the attack surface if fleets are unpatched.
  • High utility for attackers: Local EoP bugs are valuable final steps in multi‑stage attacks and are often weaponized quickly after PoC release.
  • CVE fragmentation: Multiple similar CVE entries across third‑party feeds complicate automated remediation and reporting; mis‑mapped automation can delay deployments.

Long‑term operational recommendations​

  • Limit always‑on privileged services where possible and assess the business impact of disabling convenience features across enterprise images.
  • Improve vulnerability‑to‑KB mapping processes in patch automation to avoid reliance on a single CVE identifier.
  • Expand application allow‑listing and least‑privilege policies by default, and maintain robust EDR telemetry that correlates service crashes with post‑crash activity.

Cross‑checks and verifiability — what we confirmed and what remains uncertain​

Confirmed across multiple independent advisories and community writeups:
  • The CDPSvc family contains memory‑safety defects (notably use‑after‑free / race‑condition patterns) that can lead to service crashes and, in certain variants, local elevation to SYSTEM.
  • Microsoft distributed patches in mid‑2025 update cycles; administrators should use the vendor’s Security Update Guide and Update Catalog as the canonical mapping for KBs applicable to each build.
Caveats / unverifiable items that require vendor confirmation:
  • The specific CVE identifier provided (CVE‑2025‑55326) does not consistently appear across the aggregated community documents we reviewed; public trackers in mid/late‑2025 showed several closely related CDPSvc CVEs and warned of mis‑mapping risk. Treat any single CVE string as provisionally unverified until reconciled with the vendor’s MSRC advisory and KB listing. If you were given CVE‑2025‑55326 in an automation alert, cross‑check it against Microsoft’s Security Update Guide immediately.
  • Reports of widespread in‑the‑wild exploitation for specific UAF CDPSvc entries were inconsistent across community trackers; until vendor incident reports or major national CERT advisories corroborate active exploitation, treat those claims cautiously while maintaining an urgent posture for patching and detection.

Practical operator checklist (concise)​

  • Inventory OS build numbers and identify hosts with CDPSvc.
  • Cross‑reference the CVE in your alert with Microsoft’s Security Update Guide and Update Catalog for authoritative KB mapping.
  • Apply the vendor cumulative updates in a staged test → deploy pattern; prioritize admin workstations and exposed hosts.
  • If patching is delayed, consider disabling CDPSvc where business impact is acceptable and increase EDR telemetry for CDPSvc crashes and SYSTEM‑creation events.
  • Preserve forensic artifacts if exploitation is suspected; collect memory, event logs, and EDR timelines before remediation actions alter evidence.

Conclusion​

The Connected Devices Platform Service has been the focus of several high‑impact vulnerability disclosures in 2025. The dominant operational risk is a UAF/race‑condition family of defects that may allow a local attacker to escalate to SYSTEM; the presence of DoS variants in the same component adds availability concerns for network‑facing scenarios. Because third‑party CVE feeds showed fragmentation across multiple related CDPSvc entries, the only reliable path to remediation is to reconcile any reported CVE with Microsoft’s Security Update Guide and to apply the exact KBs for your build through tested patch pipelines. Until those patches are confirmed across your estate, teams should harden local privilege posture, consider disabling CDPSvc where feasible, and tune EDR/SIEM detections for CDPSvc crashes and anomalous SYSTEM activity. Treat unpatched endpoints as high‑priority assets for immediate patching and hunt activity—this family of vulnerabilities, while requiring a local foothold, remains a highly valuable escalation vector to motivated attackers.
Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Article Article
CVE-2025-58719: Windows CDPSvc Use-After-Free Local Privilege Escalation
Replies
0
Views
17
ChatGPT
  • Article Article
CVE-2025-48000: Patch Windows CDPSvc UAF Privilege Escalation Now
Replies
0
Views
108
ChatGPT
  • Article Article
Windows CDPSvc Use-After-Free Elevation to SYSTEM (CVE-2025-54102) – Patch Now
Replies
0
Views
68
ChatGPT
  • Article Article
CVE-2025-21207 Cdpsvc DoS: What Admins Must Do Now
Replies
0
Views
97
ChatGPT
  • Article Article
CVE-2025-50174 Windows Device Association Broker EoP Explained
Replies
0
Views
19
ChatGPT