Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-61760 is a high-severity Improper Access Control (CWE-284) vulnerability in Oracle Vm Virtualbox. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 4th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-35250
Vulnerability Data
Vulnerability in the Oracle VM VirtualBox product of Oracle Virtualization (component: Core). Supported versions that are affected are 7.1.12 and 7.2.2. Difficult to exploit vulnerability allows low privileged attacker with logon to the infrastructure where Oracle VM VirtualBox executes to…
more
compromise Oracle VM VirtualBox. Successful attacks require human interaction from a person other than the attacker and while the vulnerability is in Oracle VM VirtualBox, attacks may significantly impact additional products (scope change). Successful attacks of this vulnerability can result in takeover of Oracle VM VirtualBox. CVSS 3.1 Base Score 7.5 (Confidentiality, Integrity and Availability impacts). CVSS Vector: (CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H).
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
The vulnerability allows a low-privileged local attacker to achieve full takeover of VirtualBox (C:H/I:H/A:H) with high attack complexity and user interaction required. This maps to Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068) and Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203) within a virtualized environment. The scope change (S:C) indicates potential escape or impact beyond the guest, but the description lacks explicit details on the exploitation vector.
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly enforces access control decisions to block unauthorized actions by low-privileged local users attempting to compromise VirtualBox.
Restricts privileges of authenticated local users so that even successful logon cannot lead to full VirtualBox takeover or scope-changing impact.
Provides process isolation between VirtualBox components and the host, limiting the ability of an exploited low-privileged process to affect other products.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
PR.AA-05 directly enforces policy-based access management and least privilege, eliminating most improper-access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also covers implementation flaws and design gaps outside a single management control.
Hardened baselines and deviation monitoring directly eliminate most configuration-induced access-control defects, yet CWE-284 also encompasses code-level and design flaws outside the scope of configuration management alone.
Secure SDLC practices catch most access-control defects during design/coding/testing (mostly), yet leave residual risk from runtime configuration, architecture, and operational controls (partial).
PR.AA-01 supplies managed identities/credentials that support but do not implement access-control decisions, so it only partially prevents CWE-284 in either direction.
Authentication directly blocks unauthenticated actors (partial prevention of CWE-284) but leaves authorization logic, policy enforcement, and role checks untouched, so the control neither eliminates nor fully mitigates the broader weakness.
PR.DS-01 encryption mitigates impact of failed access checks on stored data but neither implements nor constrains access-control logic itself.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Defining and enforcing explicit access rights and restrictions for each entity directly stops the assignment of permissions that exceed what is required, eliminating the root condition that allows improper access control.
Formal authorization, role-based provisioning, and timely revocation of access rights directly stop the creation of accounts or permissions that exceed what the business actually needs.
By enforcing explicit rules on which identities or groups may perform read, write, delete or execute operations and by denying anonymous access to sensitive data, the control directly stops the creation of overly permissive or missing access-control checks.
Requiring one-to-one mapping of identities to entities and timely removal of unused identities directly stops attackers from leveraging stale or shared accounts to bypass access restrictions.
By explicitly transferring security roles and responsibilities when personnel change jobs or leave, the control reduces the chance that former employees retain access rights they no longer need, thereby limiting improper access control.
Physical entry controls enforce explicit authorization and authentication at every access point, directly stopping unauthorized actors from reaching information-processing assets.