VulnerabilityPublished 16 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-10015: Sparkle · Incorrect Authorization

Affects SparkleSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium · fixed in 2.7.2 : update Sparkle when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

4.8Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.7.2

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 16 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Sparkle Project Sparkle	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all Sparkle framework instances to version 2.7.2 or later, where this vulnerability is fixed. For applications that cannot be updated promptly, implement strict local access controls to limit unprivileged user access to systems running vulnerable Sparkle versions. Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions to monitor for unusual XPC service registrations or unauthorized file copying activities. Conduct code reviews and audits of macOS applications using Sparkle to ensure no insecure usage patterns exist. Additionally, enforce the principle of least privilege for user accounts to reduce the risk of local exploitation. Consider deploying macOS privacy and security configurations that restrict or log XPC service registrations. Finally, educate developers and IT staff about this vulnerability and the importance of timely patching of third-party frameworks to prevent similar issues.

Description

The Sparkle framework includes an XPC service Downloader.xpc, by default this service is private to the application its bundled with. A local unprivileged attacker can register this XPC service globally which will inherit TCC permissions of the application. Lack of validation of connecting client allows the attacker to copy TCC-protected files to an arbitrary location. Access to other resources beyond granted-permissions requires user interaction with a system prompt asking for permission. This issue was fixed in version 2.7.2

Impact

For European organizations, especially those developing or deploying macOS applications using the Sparkle framework, this vulnerability poses a risk of unauthorized local data access. Attackers with local access (e.g., via compromised user accounts or insider threats) could exploit this flaw to copy sensitive files protected by macOS privacy controls without triggering user consent dialogs. This could lead to leakage of confidential information such as personal data, credentials, or intellectual property. Organizations in sectors with strict data protection requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and government, may face compliance risks under GDPR if sensitive data is exposed. Although remote exploitation is not feasible, the vulnerability increases the risk surface for insider attacks or malware that gains local user privileges. The limited scope of the vulnerability means it does not directly affect availability or system integrity but compromises confidentiality. The lack of user interaction requirement for copying TCC-protected files makes it stealthier and harder to detect. Overall, the impact is significant for organizations relying on Sparkle for macOS app updates and handling sensitive user data, necessitating prompt remediation to maintain compliance and data security.

CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 16 Sep 2025, 19:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats