Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.13% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceFull vulnerability report · 2025
CVE-2025-54286High confidence
CSRF Vulnerability When Using Client Certificate Authentication with the LXD-UI
Canonical · LXD
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-P8HW-RFJG-689H ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
7.5HighCVSS 4.0
Within 7 days
Fix not verifiedHigh technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
R
Open reassessment dashboard →Operational reassessment
Published severity in operational context
Published severityHigh→Operational priority:Critical, raised one band.upgradedsince 26 Feb 2026
Compensating controls
- Restrict the affected network interface to trusted sources where business-safe.
- Increase monitoring for the attack path and post-exploitation behaviour described in the report.
Verification
- Confirm that the asset runs Canonical LXD and falls inside the recorded affected range.
- Recheck the vendor advisory before scheduling a change because no verified fixed version is currently retained.
- 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
6 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 | incus | Vendor fix publishedAlpine records a security fix at this version. An absent entry does not mean the package is unaffected. | 6.0.6-r0 | Alpine Security Database ↗Source updated 11 Sep 2026 |
| Debian trixietrixie · source | incus | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.0.4-2+deb13u1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian trixietrixie · source | lxd | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 5.0.2+git20231211.1364ae4-9+deb13u1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | lxd | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | incus | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.0.5-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | incus | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 6.0.5-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Open-source package ranges8 source-attributed ranges
These OSV and GitHub advisory ranges apply only to the named package and ecosystem. A listed fixed version is not a universal product patch or proof that an update is installed.
| Ecosystem and package | Affected range | First fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gogithub.com/canonical/lxd | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 5.0; fixed 5.0.5 | 5.0.5 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Gogithub.com/canonical/lxd | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 5.1; fixed 5.21.4 | 5.21.4 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Gogithub.com/canonical/lxd | ECOSYSTEM: introduced 6.0; fixed 6.5 | 6.5 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| Gogithub.com/canonical/lxd | SEMVER: introduced 0.0.0-20220401034332-1e1349e3cbf3; fixed 0.0.0-20250827065555-0494f5d47e41 | 0.0.0-20250827065555-0494f5d47e41 | OSV record ↗aggregator derived · 10 Sep 2026 |
| gogithub.com/canonical/lxd | >= 5.0, < 5.0.5 | 5.0.5 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 5 Nov 2025 |
| gogithub.com/canonical/lxd | >= 5.1, < 5.21.4 | 5.21.4 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 5 Nov 2025 |
| gogithub.com/canonical/lxd | >= 6.0, < 6.5 | 6.5 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 5 Nov 2025 |
| gogithub.com/canonical/lxd | >= 0.0.0-20220401034332-1e1349e3cbf3, < 0.0.0-20250827065555-0494f5d47e41 | 0.0.0-20250827065555-0494f5d47e41 | GitHub advisory ↗upstream repository advisory · 5 Nov 2025 |
High technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance.
Fix not verified01
What, why and how
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in LXD-UI in Canonical LXD versions >= 5.0 on Linux allows an attacker to create and start container instances without user consent via crafted HTML form submissions exploiting client certificate authentication.
What
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in LXD-UI in Canonical LXD versions >= 5.0 on Linux allows an attacker to create and start container instances without user consent via crafted HTML form submissions exploiting client certificate authentication.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
What
Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) in LXD-UI in Canonical LXD versions >= 5.0 on Linux allows an attacker to create and start container instances without user consent via crafted HTML form submissions exploiting client certificate authentication.
Why
The application accepts a state-changing browser request without a reliable anti-forgery check.
How
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation when the stated preconditions are met. 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 Reference recorded
?
Confirmed exploitation and public exploit material are separate signals. Attacks can occur without public proof-of-concept or exploit code.A structured CVE source labels at least one public reference as exploit material. BlackTree has not independently validated that it is safe, reliable or weaponised.
- Likely attack path
- a network path → Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) → cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor
- Attack surface
- Network
- Privileges required
- None: unauthenticated exploitation is possible
- User interaction
- Active interaction required
- Attack complexity
- High: exploitation depends on specific conditions
- Security boundary
- Not a CVSS 4.0 base metric
- Weakness
?
CWE means Common Weakness Enumeration: a standard category for the underlying weakness. - CWE-352 ↗
CWE-352: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF). The web application does not, or cannot, sufficiently verify whether a request was intentionally provided by the user who sent the request, which could have originated from an unauthorized actor.
- CVSS vector
?
CVSS means Common Vulnerability Scoring System. The vector records the metric values used to calculate technical severity. CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:P/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:L/SI:L/SA:LCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 4.0: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
AVNetworkAttack vector: The vulnerable component can be reached over a network.ACHighAttack complexity: Successful exploitation depends on specific conditions outside the attacker's direct control.ATPresentAttack requirements: A particular deployment or execution condition must be present.PRNonePrivileges required: The attacker does not need an account or existing privileges.UIActiveUser interaction: A user must take a deliberate action for exploitation to succeed.VCHighVulnerable-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VIHighVulnerable-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a major loss.VAHighVulnerable-system availability: A successful attack can cause a major loss.SCLowSubsequent-system confidentiality: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SILowSubsequent-system integrity: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.SALowSubsequent-system availability: A successful attack can cause a limited loss.- Post-exploitation / living off the land
- No specific living-off-the-land technique is confirmed in the structured sources. Monitor normal administration tools for activity inconsistent with the affected service's baseline.
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. - Fix not verified
- Affected
- LXD: 5.0 < 5.0.5, 5.21 < 5.21.4, 6.0 < 6.5
- Fixed
- No fixed version is explicitly recorded in the structured CVE data.
- Action
- No verified patch reference is present in the current structured sources. Check the vendor advisory before making a change.
- Workaround
- No verified workaround is recorded. If business-safe, reduce exposure to the affected interface and allow only trusted sources until authoritative guidance is available.
04
Evidence and provenance
Published 2 Oct 2025 · Last source change 26 Feb 2026, 17:48 UTC · CWE-352 · Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF)
CVE recordCVE.org · 5.2
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-2025-32635
Product sourceCNA
Remediation sourceCVE/CNA references
CWE sourceCNA
NVD statusNVD enriched
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.