Security

Patches

Infoseccers criticize Veeam over critical RCE vulnerability and a failing blacklist

Palming off the blame using an ‘unknown’ best practice didn’t go down well either


In patching the latest critical remote code execution (RCE) bug in Backup and Replication, software shop Veeam is attracting criticism from researchers for the way it handles uncontrolled deserialization vulnerabilities.

The vendor patched the near-maximum severity CVE-2025-23120 (9.9) on March 19, which can be exploited by any authenticated domain user provided the Veeam server is domain-joined. It affects Backup and Replication 12.3.0.310 and all earlier versions, Veeam said – all supported releases.

Usually, when vulnerabilities require authentication before the bad stuff can happen, The Register pops a big warning – a caveat – near the top of a report communicating that fact. They're typically not as dangerous as their pre-auth cousins.

However, the severity score speaks for itself, and as watchTowr's Piotr Bazydlo noted in his analysis of the bug, "the authentication requirement is fairly weak."

He's referring to the fact that any domain user can exploit the bugs, provided the organization in question doesn't have a hardened Active Directory configuration. 

Veeam tries to pass some blame onto users by saying the B&R server should never be domain-joined as it goes against its best practices, but as many have already pointed out, barely anyone seems to be aware of this.

Also, as Bazydlo and Rapid7 highlighted, Veeam B&R is routinely targeted by ransomware groups, who are usually resourceful enough to gain access to at least one user account within an organization.

Further, Rapid7 added that more than 20 percent of incident response cases it was drafted to handle in 2024 involved Veeam being exploited in some way, although usually after an attacker gained an initial foothold in the victim's network.

Domain issues aside, the bulk of Bazydlo's criticism was directed at Veeam's use of a blocklist-based system to mitigate deserialization vulnerabilities. He noted that whitelists are preferred and that Veeam does indeed implement one, but one of the allow list classes can lead to the inner deserialization mechanism, which itself is controlled by a blocklist.

He piggybacked off of fellow watchTowr researcher Sina Kheirkhah's work from September on CVE-2024-40711 (9.8) – a similar RCE bug in the same product that could be exploited by gadgets missed by Veeam's blocklist.

After it was disclosed, Veeam updated its blocklist to add the gadgets that could exploit CVE-2024-40711 but Bazydlo said this approach is always a step behind the attackers. A well-maintained allow list is the preferable approach.

He stated: "Once we figured out how to reach the deserialization sink based on the blacklist, this game becomes quite simple. Put simply – you only need to find a deserialization gadget which is not blacklisted and leads to some potentially malicious impact."

And find a gadget he did. Two of them, in fact. With the right technical nouse, he said that the previous proof of concept exploit used for CVE-2024-40711 could be used with these gadgets too, with a little tweaking.

"Given the size of the Veeam codebase, we wouldn't be surprised if other researchers now find numerous further feasible deserialization gadgets."

Bazydlo blasted Veeam even further for only assigning one CVE identity to the bug despite the discovery of two separate gadgets that could be used to achieve RCE. 

"It is hard for us to be positive about this, given the criticality of the solution, combined with the well-known and trodden ground of this solution being targeted by ransomware gangs," he added.

"We get chastised for not following someone else's random definition of responsible disclosure, but where is the accountability for vendors who update a text file every time their solution gets popped?

"That would be all for the recent Veeam Backup & Replication RCE vulnerabilities. We hope that we have provided yet another proof that protection of deserialization sinks with a blacklist should be illegal.

"No matter how perfect, or ... state-of-the-art your list is, somebody will eventually find a way to abuse it."

The Register asked Veeam for a response. ®

Send us news
7 Comments

As US vuln-tracking falters, EU enters with its own security bug database

EUVD comes into play not a moment too soon

Curl project founder snaps over deluge of time-sucking AI slop bug reports

Lead dev likens flood to 'effectively being DDoSed'

Ivanti patches two zero-days under active attack as intel agency warns customers

Vendor says vulns are linked with 2 mystery open source libraries integrated into EPMM product

Uncle Sam pulls $2.4B Leidos deal to support CISA after rival alleges foul play

Nightwing claims insider intel helped secure lucrative CISA work but US says decision is unrelated

Microsoft tries to knife passwords once and for all - at least for consumers

PLUS: AirPlay exploits; Six-year old backdoor opens; Raytheon settles federal charges; and more!

'We still have embeds in CISA': CTO of Brit cyber agency talks post-Trump relationship with US counterpart

Both agencies seem unbothered despite tech world's clear concerns for US infoseccers

Eeek! p0wned Alabama hit by unspecified 'cybersecurity event'

PLUS: Euro-cops take down investment scammers; Fancy Bear returns to Ukraine; and more

DOGE worker's old creds found exposed in infostealer malware dumps

PLUS: Celsius scammer sent to slammer; Death-by-hacking victim warns you're never safe; and more

Enterprise tech dominates zero-day exploits with no signs of slowdown

As Big Tech gets used to the pain, smaller vendors urged to up their game

Pentagon declares war on 'outdated' software buying, opens fire on open source

(If only that would keep folks off unsanctioned chat app side quests)

Everyone's deploying AI, but no one's securing it – what could go wrong?

Crickets as senior security folk asked about risks at NCSC conference

Britain's cyber agents and industry clash over how to tackle shoddy software

Providers argue that if end users prioritized security, they'd get it