Skip to content
CTI Academy Sponsor CTI Academy
CRITICAL · CVSS 9.8 CISA Known Exploited Vulnerability

CVE-2025-4632

Samsung MagicINFO 9 Server Path Traversal Vulnerability

Samsung MagicINFO 9 Server

Improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory vulnerability in Samsung MagicINFO 9 Server version before 21.1052 allows attackers to write arbitrary file as system authority.

CVSS
9.8
CRITICAL
EPSS
24.1%
30-day exploitation
Ransomware groups
0
recorded exploiting
Published
13 May 2025
CWE-22

Exploitation status

CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities

Listed by CISA on 22 May 2025. US federal agencies were required to remediate it by 12 June 2025.

EPSS — exploitation probability

FIRST puts the probability of exploitation activity in the next 30 days at 24.1%, which is higher than 97.9% of all scored vulnerabilities. EPSS is a forecast of activity, not a measure of severity, and it is rescored daily.

CVSS vector

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Frequently asked questions

Is CVE-2025-4632 being exploited by ransomware groups?

No ransomware group in this database is currently recorded as exploiting CVE-2025-4632.

What does CVE-2025-4632 affect?

CVE-2025-4632 affects Samsung MagicINFO 9 Server. Improper limitation of a pathname to a restricted directory vulnerability in Samsung MagicINFO 9 Server version before 21.1052 allows attackers to write arbitrary file as system authority.

How severe is CVE-2025-4632?

CVE-2025-4632 is rated CRITICAL with a CVSS base score of 9.8. EPSS puts the probability of exploitation in the next 30 days at 24.1%, higher than 97.9% of all scored vulnerabilities. It is listed in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, with a federal remediation deadline of 12 June 2025.

How should organisations respond to CVE-2025-4632?

Apply the vendor patch for Samsung MagicINFO 9 Server as the first priority, and treat any internet-facing instance as the most urgent. Because this vulnerability is associated with ransomware activity, also review whether the affected systems were reachable before patching, rather than assuming that patching alone closes the incident.