VulnerabilityPublished 12 Feb 2026Updated 18 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-14282: dropbear · Incorrect Privilege Assignment

Affects dropbearSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 2025.88 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:07 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 34% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2025.88

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
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 impacted component.
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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Feb 2026
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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

Upgrade dropbear to 2025.88.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
https://github.com/mkj/dropbear/dropbear	Affected >=2024.84 <2025.88	Fixed in 2025.88
GitHubdropbear`pkg:github/dropbear`Other threats	Affected >=2024.84 <2025.88	Fixed in 2025.88

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

In the interim, restrict SSH access to trusted users only and enforce strict authentication policies, including multi-factor authentication where possible. Disable or limit Unix domain socket forwarding in Dropbear configurations if not required. Monitor SSH logs for unusual forwarding requests or connections to Unix sockets. Employ host-based intrusion detection systems to detect anomalous socket activity. Consider isolating critical services communicating over Unix sockets to separate hosts or containers to reduce exposure. Regularly audit user accounts with SSH access and remove unnecessary privileges. Network segmentation can limit the impact of compromised accounts. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups and incident response plans to address potential exploitation.

Description

A flaw was found in Dropbear. When running in multi-user mode and authenticating users, the dropbear ssh server does the socket forwardings requested by the remote client as root, only switching to the logged-in user upon spawning a shell or performing some operations like reading the user's files. With the recent ability of also using unix domain sockets as the forwarding destination any user able to log in via ssh can connect to any unix socket with the root's credentials, bypassing both file system restrictions and any SO_PEERCRED / SO_PASSCRED checks performed by the peer.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive inter-process communication channels on systems running Dropbear SSH server in multi-user mode. This may expose confidential data or allow manipulation of privileged processes, undermining system integrity. Critical infrastructure providers, hosting services, and enterprises using Dropbear for remote access could face increased risk of lateral movement or privilege escalation by authenticated users. The bypass of Unix socket permission checks could facilitate attacks on security-sensitive services relying on socket-based authentication. Although the vulnerability requires valid SSH credentials, compromised or insider accounts could exploit this flaw to escalate privileges. The impact is particularly relevant for organizations with multi-tenant environments or shared SSH access, common in cloud and hosting providers across Europe. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as proof-of-concept exploits could emerge. Confidentiality and integrity impacts are moderate, but the potential for privilege escalation and unauthorized data access warrants prompt mitigation.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…