Urgent Patch for CVE-2025-64672 SharePoint Spoofing on Premises

Microsoft’s Security Update Guide lists CVE-2025-64672 as a SharePoint Server spoofing vulnerability that administrators must treat with urgency: the advisory classifies the issue as a presentation-layer input neutralization problem (CWE‑79 / XSS-style) and the public trackers show a high severity rating, meaning the flaw can be used to impersonate system UI or responses and enable follow-on attacks against on‑premises SharePoint deployments.

Background / Overview​

Microsoft SharePoint Server remains a high‑value target for attackers because it hosts documents, workflows, service accounts, and integrations with Teams, OneDrive and other Microsoft services. Presentation‑layer flaws that allow spoofing (malicious pages or responses that appear to be trusted UI) are distinct from memory‑corruption RCEs: they rely on abusing trust and user/operator behavior, but their operational impact can be equal to — or exceed — many memory bugs because they directly undermine human and automation trust in management consoles and collaborative portals.
CVE‑2025‑64672 was published on December 9, 2025 in Microsoft’s Security Update Guide and appears in public vulnerability trackers with a high CVSS rating (the trackers list the CVSS v3.1 base around 8.8 with CWE‑79). The vendor page requires JavaScript rendering to view details directly, but the entry is present and should be treated as authoritative for affected products and KB mappings. Why this matters now

• SharePoint Server often runs internet‑facing endpoints (extranets, partner portals) that increase attack surface.
• Spoofing vulnerabilities permit attackers to present UI that looks legitimate to admins or automated processes, enabling credential theft, illicit approvals, API abuse, or injection of artifacts that later lead to RCE.
• Past SharePoint incidents in 2025 show chain attacks that begin with spoofing or deserialization primitives and escalate to web shells and ransomware campaigns; defenders therefore must assume high operational risk even before a public PoC is published.

---

Technical summary (what is reported so far)​

Nature of the bug​

Public trackers characterize CVE‑2025‑64672 as an improper neutralization of input during web page generation (a cross‑site scripting / input‑sanitization shortcoming) that permits spoofing over a network — i.e., an attacker can craft content or responses that are rendered in the context of SharePoint in ways that misrepresent origin or system intent. This is classed under CWE‑79 (Cross‑Site Scripting / improper neutralization of input).

Exploit primitive and likely attack chains​

The public advisory is terse (Microsoft and many vendors deliberately limit exploit mechanics to avoid assisting attackers), but operational analyses of similar SharePoint issues in 2025 point to repeated patterns attackers exploit:

• Maliciously crafted requests to SharePoint layout or portal endpoints that inject content or manipulate response rendering.
• Spoofed UI overlays or rendered elements that request credentials, tokens, or admin actions.
• Use of the spoof to coerce an admin into approving a connector, uploading a runbook, or rotating data in a way that yields automation execution or credential disclosure.
• When paired with other flaws (for example, deserialization or path‑traversal primitives seen earlier in 2025), spoofing can be the first stage of a multi‑step compromise culminating in web shell deployment and lateral movement.

Two practical technical notes:

• The term “spoofing” here does not necessarily mean low‑level network packet spoofing; rather, it denotes the ability to impersonate system UI, messages, or provenance inside the SharePoint web application context.
• Because SharePoint integrates with ASP.NET authentication, tokens, and signed ViewState/serialized blobs, a successful spoof that harvests tokens or persuades an admin to act can provide the attacker with automation‑grade capabilities (service principal abuse, API token misuse, or direct content manipulation).

---

Evidence, confidence, and what the metric means​

The user‑provided “confidence metric” text in the prompt is an accurate description of how vulnerability certainty is assessed: published-identifiers without details, corroborating independent research, and vendor acknowledgment represent ascending confidence levels. For CVE‑2025‑64672 the current public posture is:

• Vendor acknowledgement: Microsoft has a Security Update Guide entry for CVE‑2025‑64672 — this is the strongest single indicator that the issue exists and that Microsoft has tracked it. The SUG entry is the canonical source to map CVE → KBs and affected SKUs.
• Technical detail availability: Public technical details are sparse (MSRC often omits exploit recipes). Independent trackers classify the bug as spoofing/CWE‑79 and provide CVSS scoring; community write‑ups tend to describe likely impact and mitigation rather than step‑by‑step exploitation.
• Active exploitation: As of publication, there are no widely published, vendor‑confirmed reports tying CVE‑2025‑64672 itself to an active ransomware or espionage campaign. However, SharePoint servers have been targeted extensively earlier in 2025 by different but related CVEs; defenders should treat a vendor‑recognized SharePoint flaw as high‑urgency because SharePoint compromises historically lead rapidly to web shells and long‑term persistence. Where third‑party trackers claim in‑the‑wild exploitation of related SharePoint CVEs (ToolShell cluster), those incidents raise the operational threat model for any new SharePoint advisory.

In short: treat CVE‑2025‑64672 as confirmed (vendor entry exists) but technically opaque — act urgently on vendor guidance while expecting that exploit mechanics will be fleshed out by researchers later.

---

Real‑world impact scenarios (how attackers could leverage this)​

• Credential harvesting and token theft: Spoofed admin dialogs could capture credentials or OAuth consent flows, yielding access to tenant resources or local service principals.
• Illicit automation approvals: Attackers could trick administrators into approving runbooks or connectors that execute attacker‑controlled code or export secrets.
• Phishing + automation pivot: Spoofed console prompts presented to helpdesk or non‑technical operators could be used to escalate privileges or grant lateral movement ability.
• Supply‑chain / content poisoning: Malicious artifacts placed in SharePoint libraries that appear to be system‑generated could be processed by automation or ingestion services, triggering downstream actions.
• Combined chain attacks: When paired with deserialization or file‑write primitives (the ToolShell-style chains observed earlier in 2025), spoofing may be the entry vector that enables subsequent web shell installation and complete farm takeover.

---

Detection indicators and immediate hunting steps​

Short tactical checklist for defenders (fast, prioritized):

• Search IIS and SharePoint logs for unusual or unexpected POST/GET patterns targeting portal/layout endpoints, especially requests that produce unexpected 200/201 responses or large rendered HTML blocks.
• Look for new or modified files in served directories (TEMPLATE\LAYOUTS), particularly ASPX artifacts (historically seen in SharePoint compromises).
• Use EDR to hunt for w3wp.exe spawning cmd.exe, powershell.exe, or unexpected network connections soon after web requests.
• Monitor audit trails for unusual token issuance, consent grants, or automation ingestion events (connectors / runbook changes). These often accompany spoofing‑driven compromises.
• Spike detection: sudden admin console confirmations, or sequences of “system‑like” messages followed by configuration changes, are suspicious and may be evidence of UI spoofing in action.

---

Mitigation and remediation guidance (practical, step‑by‑step)​

Apply the following measures in priority order. These are operationally focused and reflect vendor guidance and community best practice.

• Confirm affected assets
• Inventory all on‑prem SharePoint Server instances (Subscription Edition, 2019, 2016 where applicable) and any reverse proxies or public gateways that expose management endpoints. Do not assume SharePoint Online is affected by on‑prem issues.
• Patch immediately
• Use Microsoft’s Security Update Guide to map CVE‑2025‑64672 to the exact KB packages for each SKU and language pack. Apply the specific SharePoint security update(s) Microsoft publishes for the CVE. Validate KB installation and post‑patch build numbers against the SUG.
• Apply compensating controls while patches are tested or deployed
• Restrict public access: block internet‑facing SharePoint endpoints where possible or place them behind an authenticated gateway (VPN, Azure AD Application Proxy, reverse proxy with strict auth).
• Harden management access: limit admin console access to known corporate IP ranges, require device compliance checks, and use conditional access policies.
• Require phishing‑resistant MFA for SharePoint and tenant admins (FIDO2 security keys) and disable legacy auth where feasible.
• Rotate secrets and cryptographic material
• If the environment was exposed (internet‑facing) prior to patching, rotate long‑lived tokens, service principal secrets, and ASP.NET machineKey values farm‑wide and restart IIS on each node. This step invalidates previously stolen machineKey material that could be used to forge signed payloads.
• Enable or confirm AMSI and antimalware integration
• Enable the Antimalware Scan Interface (AMSI) in SharePoint and ensure Defender/EDR engines are updated. AMSI can detect many malicious scripts and web shells executed inside w3wp.exe when properly integrated.
• Hunt and remediate
• Use the detection indicators above to hunt for spinstall*.aspx artifacts, suspicious scheduled tasks, unexpected GPO changes, or credential dumps (Mimikatz behavior). If you find a web shell or evidence of intrusion, follow a full incident‑response playbook (isolate nodes, preserve forensic logs, remove persistence, rebuild where necessary).
• Post‑remediation validation
• After patching and rotation, validate that older attack artifacts cannot be reused (forged ViewState or signed blobs should be rejected) and confirm normal admin flows and automation still function correctly.
• Share telemetry with vendors and CERTs
• If you observe exploitation, provide logs and IOCs to Microsoft via the Security Update Guide contact channels and to national CERTs. Coordinated reporting helps others respond faster.

The U.S. CISA and Microsoft both recommend disabling public exposure and applying updates immediately when SharePoint on‑prem vulnerabilities are published — follow both the patch and compensating control sequence above before restoring public access.

---

Why patching + rotation + detection is essential (technical rationale)​

• Patching removes the code path that allows spoofed UI or malicious input to be accepted.
• MachineKey rotation prevents reuse of any previously exfiltrated cryptographic keys which could be used to forge signed payloads (ViewState, forms authentication cookies, etc.. Attack campaigns in 2025 have shown attackers exfiltrate machineKey and then use it to persist via signed blobs.
• AMSI + EDR raise the bar for attackers who try to run scripts or web shells inside the IIS worker process — many SharePoint post‑compromise operations rely on script interpreters that AMSI can intercept.
• Access restrictions and conditional access reduce the human‑factor surface exploited by UI‑spoofing (even a perfect spoof still requires a victim to act or a system process to accept a malicious artifact).

---

Critical analysis — strengths, limitations, and residual risks​

Strengths of the vendor response and community posture

• Microsoft’s Security Update Guide remains the authoritative mapping for CVE → KB → SKU; treating SUG as canonical avoids mis‑patching or CVE mixups.
• The broader security community has matured rapid detection playbooks for SharePoint compromises (search patterns, web shell IOCs, machineKey rotation guidance), which accelerates detection and remediation in the field.

Limitations and persistent risk factors

• MSRC advisories are intentionally terse on exploit mechanics; this protects some defenders from being overwhelmed but also leaves defenders without exact exploit signatures in the immediate window.
• Patch lag and operational constraints: SharePoint farms are often large, heavily customized, and subject to strict change control. Patching can take weeks in the very largest estates — and that window is where attackers will concentrate reconnaissance and automated scanning.
• Telemetry gaps: not all deployments have AMSI or EDR integration, and many enterprises still lack centralized logging for SharePoint. These gaps materially increase residual risk even after patching.

Flagging unverifiable or time‑sensitive claims

• Some secondary trackers or aggregators may assign CVSS values or claim active exploitation; confirm exploitation status and CVSS with Microsoft’s SUG and, where available, national CERT advisories before elevating organizational response beyond standard emergency patching. If a source claims mass exploitation or actor attribution tied to CVE‑2025‑64672 specifically, treat that datum as provisional unless corroborated by Microsoft, CISA, or a major vendor telemetry report.

---

Practical playbook for WindowsForum readers (concise)​

• Inventory: Use PowerShell to enumerate SharePoint builds and map to MSRC KBs.
• Patch: Apply the exact SharePoint security updates listed for CVE‑2025‑64672 in the Security Update Guide; do not assume a generic Windows Update will cover all SKUs.
• Rotate: Rotate ASP.NET machineKey values farm‑wide and restart IIS nodes after patching to invalidate any stolen keys.
• Harden: Place SharePoint behind authenticated gateways; restrict management access to corporate IPs and require phishing‑resistant MFA.
• Hunt: Search for spinstall*.aspx, unexpected POSTs to layout/ToolPane endpoints, and w3wp→cmd/powershell process chains.
• Recover: If compromise is confirmed, isolate affected servers, preserve forensic logs, and rebuild from known‑good backups after cleanup.

---

Closing assessment and recommendations​

CVE‑2025‑64672 is a vendor‑acknowledged SharePoint spoofing vulnerability that demands immediate operational attention from organizations running on‑premises SharePoint Server. Treat Microsoft’s Security Update Guide as the authoritative source for KB mappings and patch packages, prioritize patch deployment to internet‑facing farms, and apply layered compensations (access restrictions, AMSI/EDR, cryptographic key rotation) to reduce the chance of both initial compromise and persistent re‑use of stolen keys. The practical urgency is elevated not only by the CVE’s high severity score in public trackers but also by the demonstrated effectiveness of SharePoint exploit chains earlier in 2025 that combined presentation‑layer issues with deserialization and file‑write primitives to produce web shells and ransomware campaigns. Administrators should proceed with the following immediate steps:

• Confirm which SharePoint SKUs and builds are in your estate.
• Map each host to the MSRC KB for CVE‑2025‑64672 and deploy patches per your change‑control cadence.
• While staging patches, restrict external access and require phishing‑resistant auth for admin roles.
• After patching, rotate machineKey and validate that no suspicious artifacts remain in TEMPLATE\LAYOUTS or in IIS logs.

Finally, recognize that vendor confirmation (MSRC entry) raises the operational confidence that this flaw is real; act on Microsoft’s remediation guidance now and follow up with hunting and telemetry sharing to help the community identify and disrupt any exploitation attempts.

---

Concluding note: the SharePoint attack surface remains actively probed by automated scanners and determined threat actors; combine prompt vendor patching with key rotation, telemetry‑driven hunting, and access restrictions to minimize both immediate and long‑term risk.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center