Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 1.34% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2022
CVE-2021-43860High confidence
Permissions granted to applications can be hidden from the user at install time
flatpak · flatpak
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-QPJC-VQ3C-572J ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
8.2HighCVSS 3.1
Within 7 days
Patch availableHigh technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:High, unchanged from published severity.unchanged
Compensating controls
- Validate the affected product branch and deploy the verified fixed release.
- Restrict local access and enforce least privilege on affected hosts.
- Monitor vendor guidance and exploitation sources for a material change.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs flatpak flatpak and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Verify the installed build against the product-specific fixed version after deployment.
- Validate exposure, authentication requirements and compensating controls in the actual environment.
- Reopen this reassessment when CVSS, KEV, EPSS, exploit evidence or remediation changes.
Distribution package intelligence
7 package statesRelease-specific package status
Alpine, Debian findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
Repository candidate not checked
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alpine v3.23v3.23 · community | flatpak | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 1.12.3-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 11 Sep 2026 |
| Alpine v3.22v3.22 · community | flatpak | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 1.12.3-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 11 Sep 2026 |
| Alpine v3.21v3.21 · community | flatpak | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 1.12.3-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 19 Aug 2026 |
| Debian trixietrixie · source | flatpak | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.12.3-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | flatpak | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.12.3-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | flatpak | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.12.3-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | flatpak | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 1.12.3-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Patch available01
What, why and how
Flatpak is a Linux application sandboxing and distribution framework. Prior to versions 1.12.3 and 1.10.6, Flatpak doesn't properly validate that the permissions displayed to the user for an app at install time match the actual permissions granted to the app at runtime, in the case that there's a null byte in the metadata file of an app. Therefore apps can grant themselves permissions without the consent of the user. Flatpak shows permissions to the user during install by reading them from the "xa.metadata" key in the commit metadata. This cannot contain a null terminator, because it is an untrusted GVariant. Flatpak compares these permissions to the *actual* metadata, from the "metadata" file to ensure it wasn't lied to. However, the actual metadata contents are loaded in several places where they are read as simple C-style strings. That means that, if the metadata file includes a null terminator, only the content of the file from *before* the terminator gets compared to xa.metadata. Thus, any permissions that appear in the metadata file after a null terminator are applied at runtime but not shown to the user. So maliciously crafted apps can give themselves hidden permissions. Users who have Flatpaks installed from untrusted sources are at risk in case the Flatpak has a maliciously crafted metadata file, either initially or in an update. This issue is patched in versions 1.12.3 and 1.10.6. As a workaround, users can manually check the permissions of installed apps by checking the metadata file or the xa.metadata key on the commit metadata.
What
Flatpak is a Linux application sandboxing and distribution framework. Prior to versions 1.12.3 and 1.10.6, Flatpak doesn't properly validate that the permissions displayed to the user for an app at install time match the actual permissions granted to the app at runtime, in the case that there's a null byte in the metadata file of an app. Therefore apps can grant themselves permissions without the consent of the user. Flatpak shows permissions to the user during install by reading them from the "xa.metadata" key in the commit metadata. This cannot contain a null terminator, because it is an untrusted GVariant. Flatpak compares these permissions to the *actual* metadata, from the "metadata" file to ensure it wasn't lied to. However, the actual metadata contents are loaded in several places where they are read as simple C-style strings. That means that, if the metadata file includes a null terminator, only the content of the file from *before* the terminator gets compared to xa.metadata. Thus, any permissions that appear in the metadata file after a null terminator are applied at runtime but not shown to the user. So maliciously crafted apps can give themselves hidden permissions. Users who have Flatpaks installed from untrusted sources are at risk in case the Flatpak has a maliciously crafted metadata file, either initially or in an update. This issue is patched in versions 1.12.3 and 1.10.6. As a workaround, users can manually check the permissions of installed apps by checking the metadata file or the xa.metadata key on the commit metadata.
Why
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Flatpak is a Linux application sandboxing and distribution framework. Prior to versions 1.12.3 and 1.10.6, Flatpak doesn't properly validate that the permissions displayed to the user for an app at install time match the actual permissions granted to the app at runtime, in the case that there's a null byte in the metadata file of an app. Therefore apps can grant themselves permissions without the consent of the user. Flatpak shows permissions to the user during install by reading them from the "xa.metadata" key in the commit metadata. This cannot contain a null terminator, because it is an untrusted GVariant. Flatpak compares these permissions to the *actual* metadata, from the "metadata" file to ensure it wasn't lied to. However, the actual metadata contents are loaded in several places where they are read as simple C-style strings. That means that, if the metadata file includes a null terminator, only the content of the file from *before* the terminator gets compared to xa.metadata. Thus, any permissions that appear in the metadata file after a null terminator are applied at runtime but not shown to the user. So maliciously crafted apps can give themselves hidden permissions. Users who have Flatpaks installed from untrusted sources are at risk in case the Flatpak has a maliciously crafted metadata file, either initially or in an update. This issue is patched in versions 1.12.3 and 1.10.6. As a workaround, users can manually check the permissions of installed apps by checking the metadata file or the xa.metadata key on the commit metadata.
Why
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
How
An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
02
Exploit reality and attack path
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
Observed exploitation No confirmed evidence
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
Public PoC / exploit material None recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
- Likely attack path
- local access → Improper Privilege Management → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Local
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Required interaction required
- Attack complexity
- Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
- Security boundary
- Changed: exploitation can affect a different security authority
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-269 ↗
CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management. The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:NCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVLocalAttack vector: The attacker needs local access to the vulnerable system.ACLowAttack complexity: No specialised conditions are required beyond attacker-controlled input.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIRequiredUser interaction: Another user must perform an action for exploitation to succeed.SChangedScope: The attack can affect a component governed by a different security authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.ANoneAvailability impact: No direct loss is represented by this metric.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- The issue can support a local privilege or sandbox boundary transition; normal system utilities may then be available in the gained context.
03
Patch and workaround
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
- Status
?
Patch availability is based on structured fixed-version fields and authoritative update references. If no fix is verified, check the vendor advisory before making a change. - Patch available
- Action
- Review the linked authoritative reference and apply the recorded fixed release appropriate to the affected product branch.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. Limit untrusted access and use least privilege until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 12 Jan 2022 · Last source change 4 Aug 2024, 04:10 UTC · CWE-269 · Improper Privilege Management
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.1
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
?
The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2021-30724
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
Material change intelligence
View recent updates ↗What changed after publication
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.
Technical terms and abbreviations used in this report
- CVE
- Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: the public identifier for one disclosed vulnerability.
- CVSS
- Common Vulnerability Scoring System: a technical severity framework; it is not patching priority by itself.
- EPSS
- Exploit Prediction Scoring System: FIRST's estimate of the probability that exploitation activity will be observed in the next 30 days; it is a forecast, not confirmation.
- CWE
- Common Weakness Enumeration: the standard category describing the underlying software or hardware weakness.
- CNA
- CVE Numbering Authority: an organisation authorised to assign and publish CVE records.
- CISA ADP
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Authorized Data Publisher: structured enrichment added to a CVE record.
- NVD
- National Vulnerability Database: NIST's enrichment service for CVE records.
- CERT / CSIRT
- A computer security incident response team that publishes warnings or coordinates incident response.
- PoC
- Proof of concept: public material that demonstrates or helps reproduce exploitation.
- CSAF
- Common Security Advisory Framework: a machine-readable format for security advisories.
- LoTL
- Living off the land: abuse of legitimate tools or system functions during an attack.