CVE-2025-55697: Azure Local Heap Overflow Elevates Privilege

CVE-2025-55697 is a newly catalogued heap‑based buffer overflow in an Azure local component that allows an authorized local user to elevate privileges on an affected host; Microsoft assigned a high severity rating (CVSS 3.1 base score 7.8) and published vendor guidance that administrators should treat as high priority for patching and verification.

Background / Overview​

Azure runs a broad family of on‑host components and agents that bridge local hosts to cloud management, identity and extension services. Those local components are valuable targets: when they run with elevated rights or expose local metadata/token endpoints, a successful local elevation-of-privilege (EoP) can give attackers both system control and a path to abuse machine identities or management tooling.
CVE‑2025‑55697 is described by vendor and aggregate trackers as a heap‑based buffer overflow in an Azure local component that can be triggered by an authorized local actor. The weakness is attributed to improper memory handling consistent with CWE‑122 and is associated with CAPEC patterns that include forced integer overflow and heap corruption. The published CVSS vector indicates the attack vector is local, the required privileges are low, and the impact on confidentiality, integrity and availability is high, yielding the 7.8 base score many trackers report.
This advisory arrived as part of Microsoft’s October security disclosures and was recorded in vulnerability aggregators the same day; Microsoft’s Security Update Guide hosts the authoritative advisory entry for the CVE. Because Microsoft often uses client‑side rendering on its advisory pages, defenders should view the MSRC entry in a browser to confirm the exact KB and build mappings for their environment.

---

What the vulnerability actually is​

The technical meat: heap‑based buffer overflow​

A heap‑based buffer overflow occurs when a program writes more data to a heap‑allocated buffer than it was allocated to hold. In practice this can corrupt adjacent heap metadata or control structures and, if an attacker can control the overflow data and the allocation layout, can be turned into code execution or logic corruption in the privileged context.
CVE‑2025‑55697 is characterized publicly as a heap overflow that an authorized local user can trigger. The vendor description and public trackers describe the flaw in high‑level terms rather than publishing full exploit details; the root cause class (heap overflow) and the attack vector (local) are consistent across multiple feeds.

Why a local bug matters in Azure contexts​

Local EoP in Azure‑adjacent components is disproportionately valuable to attackers because many such agents expose:

• local metadata or token endpoints that return short‑lived credentials,
• extension/management channels that can install or update code,
• integration points between host services and cloud control planes.

A compromise that elevates a low‑privilege local user to SYSTEM/root on a host that participates in Azure management can be leveraged to:

• install persistent tooling or backdoors,
• abuse machine‑assigned managed identities to access cloud resources,
• inject malicious extensions or alter management workflows.

---

Exploitability and real‑world risk​

Preconditions and attack vector​

The advisory and trackers specify that the attack is local — an adversary needs some form of local access or the ability to execute code as a non‑privileged user on the target host. Public scoring entries indicate Privileges Required: Low and User Interaction: None, which implies that once an attacker can run code locally, exploitation may be automated without further human involvement.

Likely exploitation mechanics​

Heap overflows used for local EoP often follow this pattern:

• The attacker triggers an allocation pattern that places attacker‑controlled data adjacent to sensitive heap metadata.
• A vulnerable function writes beyond a buffer’s bounds (the overflow), corrupting metadata or function pointers.
• The attacker induces subsequent allocations or actions to reuse the corrupted heap area and convert memory corruption into control‑flow hijack.

Because the advisory associates the CVE with CAPEC‑style integer/heap patterns, a forced integer overflow or truncation may be part of the root cause (for example, a size computation that wraps, leading to an undersized allocation). Exploitation complexity can vary — some heap overflows are reliable in local scenarios once an attacker can groom the allocator; others require more precise timing and environment control. Public trackers rate the attack complexity as low to moderate in this case, given the available metadata.

Is there a public proof‑of‑concept?​

At the time of publication of the vendor advisory and public trackers, there is no confirmed, vendor‑sanctioned public PoC for CVE‑2025‑55697 in mainstream feeds. Aggregators show the CVE as newly assigned and list technical metadata, but do not list an authoritative public exploit repository or verified PoC. That said, PoCs for local EoP flaws are often created quickly after disclosure; defenders should assume the possibility of a PoC emerging and act accordingly.

---

Impact assessment: who is affected and how bad is it?​

Affected systems​

Microsoft’s advisory is the canonical source for the exact product and build mapping; third‑party trackers generally mirror the short vendor description but may lag in enumerating every affected SKU. Early aggregator entries list Azure‑related host components and Windows Server variants as potentially affected, but the authoritative list of patched builds and KB numbers must be verified on the MSRC update page and the Microsoft Update Catalog. Administrators should not rely solely on a CVE number when driving automated patching — use the vendor KB mapping.

Operational impact​

A successful exploit allows a local, low‑privilege user to gain SYSTEM or equivalent elevated rights on the host, enabling:

• modification of local system configuration,
• installation of persistent executables or kernel components,
• exfiltration of local secrets and, crucially in Azure contexts,
• abuse of machine identities or management interfaces to affect cloud resources.

Because many attack chains use a local EoP as the turning point from a foothold to full compromise, CVE‑2025‑55697 represents a high‑value escalation primitive for adversaries who already possess local access — for example, via phishing, malicious build jobs, or misconfigured services.

---

Detection, hunting and forensic indicators​

Detection of exploitation hinges on host telemetry and EDR signals. Priorities for defenders:

• Monitor for unexpected process‑level exceptions or crashes in Azure agent binaries or related services; heap corruption frequently leads to crashes, which should trigger investigations.
• Hunt for sudden privilege changes where user processes spawn elevated services or SYSTEM contexts.
• Instrument file activity and service modifications tied to Azure agent install/update directories and extension folders.
• Detect anomalies in managed identity usage: sudden requests for Azure tokens or unexpected use of machine‑assigned identities are high‑value indicators that a local account has been leveraged to touch cloud resources.

Example EDR hunting queries (conceptual):

• Flag creation of reparse points or unexpected file overwrites in Program Files\AzureConnectedMachineAgent or similar paths.
• Alert on child processes where a user process spawns an elevated agent or where an agent opens user‑writable temporary files in an unexpected sequence.
• Monitor for injection or DLL replace attempts in agent service processes.

Collect full forensic artifacts on any suspected host compromise: memory captures (to analyse heap layout and corruption traces), process and service logs, and the sequence of local activity preceding the crash or privilege jump.

---

Mitigation and remediation — a prioritized playbook​

Patching is the primary mitigation. The vendor advisory in the Microsoft Security Update Guide points to fixes; apply them as soon as operational testing allows. If you cannot patch immediately, deploy the following compensating controls.

Immediate 0–48 hour actions​

• Identify hosts running Azure local agents or related management components (inventory via software inventory, SCCM/Intune, or package inventories).
• Check Microsoft’s Security Update Guide for the CVE entry and map exact KBs and builds to your environment. Confirm the mapping in a browser.
• Prioritize patching of internet‑exposed or high‑value management hosts, and any systems that host machine‑assigned identities used for sensitive cloud operations.
• Increase endpoint detection sensitivity for signs of EoP and heap corruption in agent processes.
• If a host cannot be patched, restrict who can log on to it locally and reduce the set of accounts with local interactive logon rights.

If patching is delayed: temporary mitigations​

• Run the Azure agent services under restricted service accounts where feasible (apply the principle of least privilege).
• Restrict write or create permissions on directories that the vulnerable component opens from user contexts.
• Enforce stricter execution control: apply application allow‑listing (WDAC or AppLocker) for critical service binaries and their update paths.
• Segment management/workstation networks: isolate build agents and developer workstations from management hosts until patches are installed.

Post‑patch verification​

• After deploying the update, validate the patch by checking the installed package/build numbers against the MSRC advisory’s KB mapping.
• Reboot hosts where required and confirm agent services restart cleanly.
• Run integrity checks on agent binaries and configuration folders to catch unexpected modifications.
• Re‑baseline telemetry to ensure no residual unauthorized token requests or extension installs occurred prior to patching.

---

Recommended detection rules and EDR playbook (practical examples)​

• Alert on child processes of known Azure agent binaries that are uncommon or originate from user-writable directories.
• Create telemetry rules to flag heap‑corruption crash signatures in agent processes (appcrash triggers, abnormal exception codes).
• Hunt for unusual network requests from local agents to management endpoints occurring outside normal maintenance windows.
• Correlate process creation events with token acquisition events for managed identities; anomalous pairings are strong indicators of compromise.

---

Critical analysis: strengths, gaps and operational risks​

Strengths in vendor disclosure and patching​

• Microsoft published the CVE and included it in the October security disclosures; that enables a canonical remediation path and KB mapping for enterprises to act on. Aggressive patch distribution for Azure and Windows agent components is a clear defensive win.
• Multiple independent trackers have already indexed the CVE and assigned a consistent technical classification (heap overflow, CWE‑122), which helps defenders triangulate risk.

Gaps and operational risks​

• Vendor advisories are intentionally concise and sometimes client‑side rendered, which can create confusion or delay automatic patch mapping in ticketing and patch automation systems. Enterprises that rely only on CVE strings (rather than KB identifiers) risk mis‑patching or gaps. Confirm KB/build mapping directly on the MSRC Update Guide and the Microsoft Update Catalog.
• Public trackers list severity and vector information quickly, but authoritative SKU‑to‑KB lists often lag; do not base mass patching automation solely on third‑party mirrors. Cross‑check before mass deployment.
• At present there is no confirmed vendor‑sanctioned public PoC in the major exploit repositories — but proof‑of‑concepts for local EoP issues commonly appear after disclosure. Treat PoC absence as temporary and prioritize patching accordingly.

Risk of chaining in hybrid/cloud environments​

Because Azure agents mediate both local host configuration and cloud management tasks, a local EoP on a management host can be amplified into cloud‑level effects (token theft, extension misconfiguration, or management plane abuse). Organizations should treat EoP in Azure‑adjacent components as high priority even if the initial vector is local.

---

Practical checklist for IT and security teams​

• Inventory: List all endpoints with Azure/Arc agents installed. Use dotnet --list-runtimes, package inventories, or agent product registries where applicable.
• Confirm: Open the MSRC Update Guide entry for CVE‑2025‑55697 in a browser and map the KB/build numbers to your devices.
• Patch: Schedule and deploy vendor updates to high‑risk hosts first (management servers, hosts with machine‑assigned identities).
• Harden: Apply least privilege to agent service accounts and tighten who can perform local interactive logon.
• Monitor: Update EDR/IDS rules to detect heap‑corruption crashes, unusual extension installs, and suspicious managed identity token requests.
• Forensically preserve: If suspicious activity is detected, isolate the host, capture memory and logs, and follow established incident response playbooks for EoP investigations.

---

Forward look: why this matters beyond one CVE​

EoP vulnerabilities in management‑plane software and cloud agents are systemic risk multipliers. Past incidents have shown that a local escalation on a single management host can convert into lateral movement, credential theft, or cloud resource compromise. The security community’s response posture should be to treat Azure‑adjacent EoP disclosures as high priority for inventory, patching, and endpoint hardening.
In parallel, organizations should review patch automation workflows to ensure they map CVEs to vendor KBs and do not rely on a single third‑party feed, since naming and mapping inconsistencies are common and can lead to missed updates.

---

Conclusion​

CVE‑2025‑55697 is a high‑impact, locally exploitable heap‑based buffer overflow in an Azure local component that gives a low‑privilege, authorized user the potential to achieve SYSTEM/root level control on affected hosts. The vulnerability’s high CVSS score and the sensitive nature of Azure agents and local metadata endpoints mean defenders must respond with urgency: inventory affected hosts, validate KB/build mappings on Microsoft’s Security Update Guide, deploy vendor updates swiftly, and harden any remaining unpatched hosts with least‑privilege service accounts and enhanced EDR coverage.
For immediate action: confirm the MSRC advisory entry for CVE‑2025‑55697 in your browser, map the KBs to your environment, prioritize patching of management and cloud‑integrated hosts, and elevate monitoring for heap‑crash signatures and anomalous managed‑identity activity.
Caveat: some operational details (PoC availability, exploit stability) remain fluid; public trackers and vendor pages should be rechecked regularly as new information, fixes or mitigations may be published after the initial disclosure.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center