CVE-2025-58719: Windows CDPSvc Use-After-Free Local Privilege Escalation

A use‑after‑free vulnerability in the Windows Connected Devices Platform Service (CDPSvc) — tracked as CVE‑2025‑58719 — allows an authorized local attacker to elevate privileges on affected machines by forcing the service to reuse freed memory in a way that corrupts execution flow; administrators must treat the issue as a high‑priority local elevation‑of‑privilege (EoP) risk and validate patch applicability against vendor KB mappings immediately.

Background / Overview​

The Connected Devices Platform Service (CDPSvc) is a Windows system service that brokers device discovery, nearby sharing, certain Bluetooth/IoT interactions, and other user‑facing connectivity features. Because CDPSvc is typically hosted in an elevated service context on both client and server SKUs, memory‑safety defects in that component can present powerful privilege‑escalation opportunities.
CVE‑2025‑58719 is described in vendor and public trackers as a use‑after‑free (UAF) memory corruption in CDPSvc that can be triggered by a local, authenticated user to escalate to SYSTEM. Public CVE aggregators list the vulnerability as UAF/CWE‑416 and classify it as local‑attack‑vector with impacts centered on availability and privilege.
This article synthesizes publicly available technical descriptions, vendor advisory behavior, and independent tracker analysis to provide actionable guidance: what the bug is, how it behaves, who is affected, how to prioritize response, and practical detection and mitigation steps for security teams and admins.

---

How the vulnerability works — technical breakdown​

Use‑after‑free (UAF) fundamentals​

A use‑after‑free occurs when a program frees (deallocates) an object or memory buffer while a live pointer to that memory remains accessible and later dereferenced. If an attacker can influence the allocation/reuse of that memory region, they may substitute controlled data (or pointers) into the freed slot and cause the service to interpret that attacker‑supplied data as valid program state. In privileged services this can result in corrupted virtual tables, overwritten function pointers, or control‑flow redirection — all classic paths to privilege escalation.

Why CDPSvc is sensitive​

CDPSvc handles frequent, asynchronous interactions (device discovery, IPC from user sessions, and brokered device events). Those patterns create many short‑lived objects and concurrent callbacks, which increase the surface for lifecycle and synchronization mistakes. When a UAF is compounded by a timing/race window, attackers can reliably reproduce the allocation pattern needed for exploitation. Several CDPSvc CVEs in 2025 have followed this pattern.

Exploitation primitives and limitations​

• Preconditions: CVE records and vendor notes indicate the flaw is local — an attacker needs the ability to run code or interact locally on the target (typically a standard user account). This places CVE‑2025‑58719 in the post‑compromise escalation category rather than a directly remote wormable exploit.
• Complexity: UAF exploitation often requires precise timing (heap grooming, deterministic allocation patterns). Skilled exploit developers can automate these steps, and past UAFs in Windows have seen quick weaponization after proof‑of‑concepts were published.
• Privilege impact: Successful exploitation of a privileged service such as CDPSvc typically leads to SYSTEM‑level control on the host, enabling disabling of defenses, persistence, data exfiltration, and lateral movement.

---

Affected systems and verification caveats​

Scope and product coverage​

Public vulnerability trackers that catalog related CDPSvc defects during 2025 show multiple, closely related CVEs (examples appearing in July–September 2025). Some entries map to a broad range of Windows client and server SKUs. Independent vulnerability databases and vendor advisories indicate that CDPSvc flaws affect Windows 10/11 branches as well as recent Windows Server releases, though the exact build/KB mapping is contextual to each OS build. Administrators must confirm the precise KB(s) for their builds via the vendor’s Security Update Guide and the Microsoft Update Catalog.

CVE mapping fragmentation — caution for automated tooling​

There has been notable fragmentation across third‑party CVE feeds in the July–October 2025 window: multiple CDPSvc CVEs with similar descriptions appear across different feeds and dates. This can lead to mismatches when automated patch‑management rules match only by CVE identifier. The practical remedy is to reconcile each CVE against the vendor’s KB/build mapping rather than treating the CVE as the only canonical token for enforcement. If an assigned CVE cannot be located in vendor advisories, treat that CVE as unverified until vendor confirmation.

---

Exploitability and risk profile — what defenders should assume​

Likelihood of exploitation​

Although the attack vector is local, the EoP class of bugs like CVE‑2025‑58719 are frequently used as the final step once an attacker has a foothold (e.g., via phishing, malicious installer, or a prior code‑execution bug). Historically, when proof‑of‑concepts for UAFs become public, exploitation rates increase rapidly across criminal and state‑sponsored actors. Treat unpatched hosts as high‑risk.

Threat model impact​

• High impact on endpoints: Any machine where a user can execute untrusted code (workstation, admin laptop, developer host) becomes a priority patch target.
• Elevated value for attackers: Admin workstations, jump boxes, and remote‑access hosts are obvious high‑value targets because an EoP there yields greater network access.
• Not network‑wormable in typical descriptions: Because CVE‑2025‑58719 requires local interaction, it’s less likely to be exploited en masse across the internet compared to unauthenticated remote RCEs, but the risk remains significant for environments with weak segmentation or exposed user sessions.

---

Patching, mitigations, and operational guidance​

Primary action — patch immediately (recommended)​

• Identify affected hosts by querying your inventory for installed Windows build numbers and installed cumulative updates.
• Consult the vendor Security Update Guide for CVE→KB mapping and pull the exact KBs for each build into your test ring. Validate the update in a controlled group.
• Deploy the update across your estate via your standard patch pipelines (WSUS, SCCM, Intune, or equivalent). Confirm successful installation and required reboots.

Rapid7 and other vulnerability databases that index Microsoft KBs list the specific KB articles tied to the CDPSvc updates for various Windows branches; use these references to map updates to builds and to validate deployment.

Short‑term mitigations if you cannot patch immediately​

• Consider disabling CDPSvc on systems where the connected‑device functionality is non‑essential. Disabling convenience features such as Nearby Sharing and device brokering will impact user experience, so test before broad application.
• Enforce strict local privilege policies: remove unnecessary local administrators and employ privileged access workstations (PAWs) for sensitive tasks.
• Apply application allow‑listing (AppLocker, Windows Defender Application Control) to reduce the chance of an untrusted binary achieving the initial local execution primitive.
• For exposed servers, use host‑level firewalls and network segmentation to isolate high‑risk endpoints and to restrict lateral movement paths.

Detection and hunting guidance​

Look for early indicators that often precede or follow attempted exploitation of UAF/EoP issues:

• Repeated crashes or restarts of CDPSvc (service termination events in the System log, repeated svchost instability).
• Suspicious parent/child process trees where non‑privileged processes spawn or request privileged operations.
• Unexpected SYSTEM token creation or privilege escalation artifacts (process creations under SYSTEM, scheduled tasks created with elevated context).
• Correlate service crash windows with suspicious local activity from user sessions or recent installer executions; these windows are often used to time heap grooming or race windows.

Suggested SIEM/EDR rules to implement immediately:

• Alert on repeated CDPSvc crashes within short time windows.
• Alert on non‑system (user) processes attempting to interact with privileged service IPC endpoints associated with CDP.
• High‑confidence alerts for any process that spawns a new process which performs SYSTEM‑level changes (registry HKLM writes, service creation, scheduled tasks).

---

Practical response checklist for IT and security teams​

• Inventory: Run a full inventory of Windows builds and identify machines with CDPSvc present.
• Map: Use the vendor Security Update Guide to map CVE‑2025‑58719 (and any related CDPSvc CVEs) to KB numbers for each OS build in your estate. Do not rely solely on third‑party CVE strings.
• Test: Apply the patches to a small test ring that represents critical business workloads for 24–72 hours.
• Deploy: Push the tested KBs via WSUS/SCCM/Intune with monitoring to verify success.
• Harden: Remove local admin rights where possible, enable application control, and segment high‑value hosts.
• Monitor: Increase telemetry collection and activate EDR playbooks to hunt for UAF signs and anomalous post‑elevation behavior.
• Remediate: If exploitation is suspected, follow incident response playbooks — collect volatile memory, endpoint snapshots, and network logs before remediation steps that may alter evidentiary state.

---

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

Strengths (what reduces immediate risk)​

• Vendor patch availability: Microsoft and major update channels have distributed fixes for related CDPSvc issues during mid‑2025 patch cycles; that gives a direct remediation path.
• Local‑only vector limits immediate remote mass exploitation: the flaw requires local interaction, meaning an external attacker must first obtain a local foothold to leverage the EoP.

Weaknesses and operational gaps​

• Wide presence of CDPSvc: CDPSvc ships on many client and server SKUs, expanding the attack surface if fleets are unpatched.
• CVE fragmentation: multiple, closely related CDEs/CVEs across public trackers create mapping confusion that can complicate automated remediation and reporting. Always map to vendor KBs rather than third‑party CVE strings alone.
• Chaining risk: EoP bugs are highly valuable in multi‑stage attacks. An attacker with a low‑privilege process can use an EoP to gain system control and then disable security controls, making post‑exploit detection and cleanup far harder.

Long‑term recommendations​

• Reduce reliance on high‑privilege always‑on services where feasible and evaluate the business impact of disabling convenience features system‑wide.
• Expand application allow‑listing and enforce stricter local privilege separation for everyday user operations.
• Invest in telemetry and EDR enrichment that surfaces UAF patterns (service crashes ± suspicious local operation) faster.
• Improve vulnerability‑to‑KB mapping processes in patch automation to avoid CVE→KB mismatches and fragile automation.

---

What we verified and where caution is required​

• Verified facts: The vulnerability is publicly recorded as a CDPSvc use‑after‑free EoP that requires local interaction and allows elevation to SYSTEM on successful exploitation; multiple independent trackers (vulnerability aggregators and security databases) document the issue and the vendor has published related advisories/patches in mid‑2025.
• Cross‑checks used: Independent sources including vulnerability aggregators and commercial vulnerability databases were checked to ensure the vulnerability type (UAF/CWE‑416), vector (local), and impact (local elevation to SYSTEM) are consistent.
• Cautionary note: Public tracker feeds show fragmentation and multiple CDPSvc CVEs during the July–October 2025 period with overlapping or similar wording. As a result, some third‑party CVE entries may not align exactly with the vendor’s KB mapping for a particular OS build. If your patch automation relies on a single CVE identifier rather than the vendor KB mapping, treat that CVE as provisionally unverified until the vendor’s Security Update Guide confirms the KB for your build.

---

Appendix — immediate commands and checks (examples)​

• List service status for CDPSvc:
• Get‑Service -Name CDPSvc
• Check installed updates and KBs:
• wmic qfe get HotFixID,Description,InstalledOn
• Search Event Logs for CDPSvc crashes (example PowerShell):
• Get‑EventLog -LogName System -Source Service Control Manager -After (Get-Date).AddHours(-24) | Where-Object {$_.Message -like 'CDPSvc'}

Always validate commands and adapt them to your environment and tooling before running at scale.

---

Conclusion​

CVE‑2025‑58719 represents a serious local elevation‑of‑privilege risk rooted in a use‑after‑free memory corruption within the Windows Connected Devices Platform Service. While exploitation requires local interaction and some timing control, the potential impact — SYSTEM on compromised hosts — makes this class of vulnerability immediately actionable for defenders. Patch quickly, reconcile CVE→KB mappings against the vendor Security Update Guide, harden local privilege posture, and augment detection to watch for the telltale patterns of UAF exploitation (service crashes, anomalous process behavior, and SYSTEM token creation). Treat unpatched hosts as high priority and assume determined adversaries will try to weaponize local EoP primitives when opportunities arise.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center