Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2025-8087 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

16 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with EDR process telemetry, host service logs where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2025-8087 using CVSS 7, EPSS 0%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

highRemote Code Execpublic exploit

CVE-2025-8087

CVE-2025-8087 — A DLL hijacking vulnerability in AMD Power Design Manager could allow a malicious local attacker to escalate privileges during the…

A DLL hijacking vulnerability in AMD Power Design Manager could allow a malicious local attacker to escalate privileges during the uninstallation process, potentially resulting in arbitrary code execution.

Published Aug 11, 2026Updated Aug 11, 2026Sources: NVD, AMD (CNA), GitHub, SOCRadar CTI

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

ahead of 0% of scored CVEs

Affects

AMD

AMD Power Design Manager (PDM) Software Un-Installer

CVSS base

high

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade AMD Power Design Manager (PDM) Software Un-Installer to a fixed release (2026.1). Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
AMD	AMD Power Design Manager (PDM) Software Un-Installer	2026.1	Patched

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Scope

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Local

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
7	CVSS 4.0	high	—	—	AMD (CNA)

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

What this weakness leads to

MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.

MITRE

CWE-427 · Uncontrolled Search Path Element

Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands::

Mitigation: Hard-code the search path to a set of known-safe values (such as system directories), or only allow them to be specified by the administrator in a configuration file. Do not allow these settings to be modified by an external party. Be careful to avoid related weaknesses such as CWE-426 and CWE-428.

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-427

Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.

CAPEC-38 · Leveraging/Manipulating Configuration File Search PathsCAPEC-471 · Search Order Hijacking

T1574.007Hijack Execution Flow: Path Interception by PATH Environment Variable
T1574.009Hijack Execution Flow: Path Interception by Unquoted Path
T1574.001Hijack Execution Flow: DLL search order hijacking

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

1 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 16 public PoC repositories were reported.

EDR process telemetryhost service logs

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 7.0 (AV:L)
Aug 11, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 11, 2026 · NVD

Source activity

Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.

1×CVE modified by NIST, Modified, LinkAug 11, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI

References

1 on the record

www.amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/AMD-SB-8016.html
Vendor Advisory, NIST

Elsewhere on this site

AMDevery CVE for this vendor
Remote Code Execsame class
CWE-427other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-8087 is A DLL hijacking vulnerability in AMD Power Design Manager could allow a malicious local attacker to escalate privileges during the…, a high vulnerability affecting AMD Power Design Manager (PDM) Software Un-Installer from AMD. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 16 public PoC repositories reported; 1 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 7 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.