BlackTreeIndependent security intelligence
← Back to the CVE catalogue
Full vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2025-37814High confidence

tty: Require CAP_SYS_ADMIN for all usages of TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT

Linux · Linux

7.8HighCVSS 3.1
Recommended action
Within 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
Distribution package intelligence

Ubuntu vendor package status

Canonical’s release and source-package findings are shown separately from local repository availability.

8 package states
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.

Ubuntu releaseSource packageVendor stateFixed versionEvidence
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-azure-6.11Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 4 Sept 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-gcp-6.11Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 4 Sept 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-hwe-6.11Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 4 Sept 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-lowlatency-hwe-6.11Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 4 Sept 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-nvidia-6.11Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 4 Sept 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-oem-6.11Affected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 4 Sept 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-raspi-realtimeAffected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 4 Sept 2026
Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archivelinux-realtimeAffected, no fix publishedCanonical OVAL identifies this running kernel flavour as affected and does not publish a fixed package version in this definition.Not published in this feedCanonical record ↗Source updated 4 Sept 2026
Optional official sources

National CERT insights
?CERT means Computer Emergency Response Team; CSIRT is the closely related term Computer Security Incident Response Team.

Select the national-authority views to include. The exact source language is shown on each matched advisory. Your choice is remembered on this device and encoded in the shareable URL.

Official European source

ENISA European Vulnerability Database

Official EUVD identifiers, advisory evidence and known-exploited context. Missing fields are not treated as evidence of low risk.

1 current
ENISA EUVD identifier

EUVD-2025-13976

No EUVD known-exploited evidence

ENISA has published the identifier mapping but no EUVD description has been stored yet.

EUVD state
Present in the current official mapping
Known exploitation
Not present in the current ENISA EUVD known-exploited dataset. This is not proof of no exploitation.
ENISA score
Not supplied in the stored EUVD record
Advisory evidence
No linked advisory details stored yet
Recommended actionWithin 7 days

High technical severity; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.

Patch available
01

What, why and how

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tty: Require CAP_SYS_ADMIN for all usages of TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT This requirement was overeagerly loosened in commit 2f83e38a095f ("tty: Permit some TIOCL_SETSEL modes without CAP_SYS_ADMIN"), but as it turns out, (1) the logic I implemented there was inconsistent (apologies!), (2) TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT might actually be a small security risk after all, and (3) TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT is only meant to be used by the mouse daemon (GPM or Consolation), which runs as CAP_SYS_ADMIN already. In more detail: 1. The previous patch has inconsistent logic: In commit 2f83e38a095f ("tty: Permit some TIOCL_SETSEL modes without CAP_SYS_ADMIN"), we checked for sel_mode == TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT, but overlooked that the lower four bits of this "mode" parameter were actually used as an additional way to pass an argument. So the patch did actually still require CAP_SYS_ADMIN, if any of the mouse button bits are set, but did not require it if none of the mouse buttons bits are set. This logic is inconsistent and was not intentional. We should have the same policies for using TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT independent of the value of the "hidden" mouse button argument. I sent a separate documentation patch to the man page list with more details on TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250223091342.35523-2-gnoack3000@gmail.com/ 2. TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT is indeed a potential security risk which can let an attacker simulate "keyboard" input to command line applications on the same terminal, like TIOCSTI and some other TIOCLINUX "selection mode" IOCTLs. By enabling mouse reporting on a terminal and then injecting mouse reports through TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT, an attacker can simulate mouse movements on the same terminal, similar to the TIOCSTI keystroke injection attacks that were previously possible with TIOCSTI and other TIOCL_SETSEL selection modes. Many programs (including libreadline/bash) are then prone to misinterpret these mouse reports as normal keyboard input because they do not expect input in the X11 mouse protocol form. The attacker does not have complete control over the escape sequence, but they can at least control the values of two consecutive bytes in the binary mouse reporting escape sequence. I went into more detail on that in the discussion at https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221.0a947528d8f3@gnoack.org/ It is not equally trivial to simulate arbitrary keystrokes as it was with TIOCSTI (commit 83efeeeb3d04 ("tty: Allow TIOCSTI to be disabled")), but the general mechanism is there, and together with the small number of existing legit use cases (see below), it would be better to revert back to requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN for TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT, as it was already the case before commit 2f83e38a095f ("tty: Permit some TIOCL_SETSEL modes without CAP_SYS_ADMIN"). 3. TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT is only used by the mouse daemons (GPM or Consolation), and they are the only legit use case: To quote console_codes(4): The mouse tracking facility is intended to return xterm(1)-compatible mouse status reports. Because the console driver has no way to know the device or type of the mouse, these reports are returned in the console input stream only when the virtual terminal driver receives a mouse update ioctl. These ioctls must be generated by a mouse-aware user-mode application such as the gpm(8) daemon. Jared Finder has also confirmed in https://lore.kernel.org/all/491f3df9de6593df8e70dbe77614b026@finder.org/ that Emacs does not call TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT directly, and it would be difficult to find good reasons for doing that, given that it would interfere with the reports that GPM is sending. More information on the interaction between GPM, terminals and th ---truncated---

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tty: Require CAP_SYS_ADMIN for all usages of TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT This requirement was overeagerly loosened in commit 2f83e38a095f ("tty: Permit some TIOCL_SETSEL modes without CAP_SYS_ADMIN"), but as it turns out, (1) the logic I implemented there was inconsistent (apologies!), (2) TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT might actually be a small security risk after all, and (3) TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT is only meant to be used by the mouse daemon (GPM or Consolation), which runs as CAP_SYS_ADMIN already. In more detail: 1. The previous patch has inconsistent logic: In commit 2f83e38a095f ("tty: Permit some TIOCL_SETSEL modes without CAP_SYS_ADMIN"), we checked for sel_mode == TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT, but overlooked that the lower four bits of this "mode" parameter were actually used as an additional way to pass an argument. So the patch did actually still require CAP_SYS_ADMIN, if any of the mouse button bits are set, but did not require it if none of the mouse buttons bits are set. This logic is inconsistent and was not intentional. We should have the same policies for using TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT independent of the value of the "hidden" mouse button argument. I sent a separate documentation patch to the man page list with more details on TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250223091342.35523-2-gnoack3000@gmail.com/ 2. TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT is indeed a potential security risk which can let an attacker simulate "keyboard" input to command line applications on the same terminal, like TIOCSTI and some other TIOCLINUX "selection mode" IOCTLs. By enabling mouse reporting on a terminal and then injecting mouse reports through TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT, an attacker can simulate mouse movements on the same terminal, similar to the TIOCSTI keystroke injection attacks that were previously possible with TIOCSTI and other TIOCL_SETSEL selection modes. Many programs (including libreadline/bash) are then prone to misinterpret these mouse reports as normal keyboard input because they do not expect input in the X11 mouse protocol form. The attacker does not have complete control over the escape sequence, but they can at least control the values of two consecutive bytes in the binary mouse reporting escape sequence. I went into more detail on that in the discussion at https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221.0a947528d8f3@gnoack.org/ It is not equally trivial to simulate arbitrary keystrokes as it was with TIOCSTI (commit 83efeeeb3d04 ("tty: Allow TIOCSTI to be disabled")), but the general mechanism is there, and together with the small number of existing legit use cases (see below), it would be better to revert back to requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN for TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT, as it was already the case before commit 2f83e38a095f ("tty: Permit some TIOCL_SETSEL modes without CAP_SYS_ADMIN"). 3. TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT is only used by the mouse daemons (GPM or Consolation), and they are the only legit use case: To quote console_codes(4): The mouse tracking facility is intended to return xterm(1)-compatible mouse status reports. Because the console driver has no way to know the device or type of the mouse, these reports are returned in the console input stream only when the virtual terminal driver receives a mouse update ioctl. These ioctls must be generated by a mouse-aware user-mode application such as the gpm(8) daemon. Jared Finder has also confirmed in https://lore.kernel.org/all/491f3df9de6593df8e70dbe77614b026@finder.org/ that Emacs does not call TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT directly, and it would be difficult to find good reasons for doing that, given that it would interfere with the reports that GPM is sending. More information on the interaction between GPM, terminals and th ---truncated---

Why

The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.

What

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: tty: Require CAP_SYS_ADMIN for all usages of TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT This requirement was overeagerly loosened in commit 2f83e38a095f ("tty: Permit some TIOCL_SETSEL modes without CAP_SYS_ADMIN"), but as it turns out, (1) the logic I implemented there was inconsistent (apologies!), (2) TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT might actually be a small security risk after all, and (3) TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT is only meant to be used by the mouse daemon (GPM or Consolation), which runs as CAP_SYS_ADMIN already. In more detail: 1. The previous patch has inconsistent logic: In commit 2f83e38a095f ("tty: Permit some TIOCL_SETSEL modes without CAP_SYS_ADMIN"), we checked for sel_mode == TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT, but overlooked that the lower four bits of this "mode" parameter were actually used as an additional way to pass an argument. So the patch did actually still require CAP_SYS_ADMIN, if any of the mouse button bits are set, but did not require it if none of the mouse buttons bits are set. This logic is inconsistent and was not intentional. We should have the same policies for using TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT independent of the value of the "hidden" mouse button argument. I sent a separate documentation patch to the man page list with more details on TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250223091342.35523-2-gnoack3000@gmail.com/ 2. TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT is indeed a potential security risk which can let an attacker simulate "keyboard" input to command line applications on the same terminal, like TIOCSTI and some other TIOCLINUX "selection mode" IOCTLs. By enabling mouse reporting on a terminal and then injecting mouse reports through TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT, an attacker can simulate mouse movements on the same terminal, similar to the TIOCSTI keystroke injection attacks that were previously possible with TIOCSTI and other TIOCL_SETSEL selection modes. Many programs (including libreadline/bash) are then prone to misinterpret these mouse reports as normal keyboard input because they do not expect input in the X11 mouse protocol form. The attacker does not have complete control over the escape sequence, but they can at least control the values of two consecutive bytes in the binary mouse reporting escape sequence. I went into more detail on that in the discussion at https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250221.0a947528d8f3@gnoack.org/ It is not equally trivial to simulate arbitrary keystrokes as it was with TIOCSTI (commit 83efeeeb3d04 ("tty: Allow TIOCSTI to be disabled")), but the general mechanism is there, and together with the small number of existing legit use cases (see below), it would be better to revert back to requiring CAP_SYS_ADMIN for TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT, as it was already the case before commit 2f83e38a095f ("tty: Permit some TIOCL_SETSEL modes without CAP_SYS_ADMIN"). 3. TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT is only used by the mouse daemons (GPM or Consolation), and they are the only legit use case: To quote console_codes(4): The mouse tracking facility is intended to return xterm(1)-compatible mouse status reports. Because the console driver has no way to know the device or type of the mouse, these reports are returned in the console input stream only when the virtual terminal driver receives a mouse update ioctl. These ioctls must be generated by a mouse-aware user-mode application such as the gpm(8) daemon. Jared Finder has also confirmed in https://lore.kernel.org/all/491f3df9de6593df8e70dbe77614b026@finder.org/ that Emacs does not call TIOCL_SELMOUSEREPORT directly, and it would be difficult to find good reasons for doing that, given that it would interfere with the reports that GPM is sending. More information on the interaction between GPM, terminals and th ---truncated---

Why

The current structured CVE record identifies a security weakness, but the root cause requires confirmation in the linked vendor material.

How

An attacker operating through local access may attempt exploitation with low privileges. 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
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
No confirmed evidence

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
?Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.
None recorded

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 → vulnerable operation → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
Attack surface
Local
Privileges required
Low: a basic authenticated account is required
User interaction
None
Attack complexity
Low: no specialised conditions are recorded
Security boundary
Unchanged: impact remains within the vulnerable component's security authority
Weakness
?CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration.
CWE not yet assigned
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:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Common 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.PRLowPrivileges required: The attacker needs basic user-level privileges.UINoneUser interaction: No action by another user is required.SUnchangedScope: The security impact remains within the vulnerable component's authority.CHighConfidentiality impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.IHighIntegrity impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.AHighAvailability impact: A successful attack can cause a major loss.
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.
A

Official authority intelligence

Only matched European and national findings are included. Language selectors and unavailable sources are omitted.

BSI · German · WID-SEC-W-2025-0975Linux Kernel: Mehrere Schwachstellen ermöglichen Denial of Service

Ein Angreifer kann mehrere Schwachstellen in Linux Kernel ausnutzen, um einen Denial of Service Angriff oder einen unspezifischen Angriff durchzuführen.

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0607Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2025-37797 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37798 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37798 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37800 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37800 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37801 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37801 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37805 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37805 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37810 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37810 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37811 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37811 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37812 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37812 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37813 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37813 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37814 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37814 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37815 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37815 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37816 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37816 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37819 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37819 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37823 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37823 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37836 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37836 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37837 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37837 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37839 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37839 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37840 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0587Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux de SUSE

d?id=CVE-2025-37796 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37798 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37798 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37800 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37800 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37801 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37801 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37805 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37805 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37810 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37810 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37811 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37811 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37812 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37812 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37813 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37813 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37814 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37814 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37815 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37815 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37816 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37816 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37819 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37819 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37823 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37823 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37836 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37836 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37837 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37837 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37839 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37839 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37840 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0589Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux d'Ubuntu

d?id=CVE-2025-37805 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37806 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37806 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37807 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37807 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37808 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37808 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37809 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37809 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37810 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37810 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37811 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37811 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37812 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37812 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37813 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37813 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37814 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37814 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37815 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37815 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37816 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37816 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37817 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37817 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37819 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37819 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37820 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37820 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37821 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37821 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37822 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37822 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37823 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
CERT-FR · French · CERTFR-2025-AVI-0559Multiples vulnérabilités dans le noyau Linux d'Ubuntu

d?id=CVE-2025-37805 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37806 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37806 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37807 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37807 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37808 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37808 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37809 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37809 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37810 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37810 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37811 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37811 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37812 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37812 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37813 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37813 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37814 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37814 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37815 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37815 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37816 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37816 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37817 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37817 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37819 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37819 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37820 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37820 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37821 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37821 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37822 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=CVE-2025-37822 Référence CVE CVE-2025-37823 https://www.cve.org/CVERecord?id=

Official advisory
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
Affected
e46d91ca504d69ae3d09c120b162a238b8013890 < 6f021bc0083b96125fdbed6a60d7b4396c4d6dac; 2f83e38a095f8bf7c6029883d894668b03b9bd93 < 9b50c9c97db953de756a39af83d4be4d7f618aa6; 2f83e38a095f8bf7c6029883d894668b03b9bd93 < ee6a44da3c87cf64d67dd02be8c0127a5bf56175; 2714ffdbb79b48dda03334a01af90fb024f39047; 6.12.14 < 6.12.26; 6.13.3 < 6.14; 6.14
Fixed
< 6.14; 6.12.26 ≤ 6.12.*; 6.14.5 ≤ 6.14.*; 6.15 ≤ *
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 8 May 2025 · Last source change 5 Aug 2026, 11:57 UTC · CWE not yet assigned

CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
CVSS sourceCNA
EPSS source
?The date BlackTree first stored a score for this CVE from the daily FIRST EPSS feed.
FIRST · tracked since 2026-08-14
European sourceENISA EUVD · EUVD-2025-13976
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceUnavailable
NVD statusNVD modified after enrichment

Missing structured fields: CWE classification. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.

Material change intelligence

What changed after publication

View recent updates →

No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.

Material fields only · duplicate refreshes suppressed · history retained for the configured operational retention period
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.
Free version - for non-commercial use only.CVE-2025-37814 · cve.blacktree.nl