VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jan 2025Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2025-24121: Apple macOS · Incorrect Authorization

Affects Apple macOSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low · fixed in 15.3 : update Apple macOS when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 15.3

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component 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 remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within 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 27 Jan 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apple macOS	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-24121, organizations should prioritize updating affected macOS systems to versions Sequoia 15.3, Sonoma 14.7.3, or Ventura 13.7.3 or later, where the vulnerability is patched. Additionally, implement strict application control policies to limit installation and execution of untrusted or unsigned applications, reducing the risk of local exploitation. Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions to monitor for suspicious file system modifications, especially in protected directories. Enforce the principle of least privilege by restricting user accounts and avoiding unnecessary local admin rights. Regularly audit system integrity using tools like Apple’s System Integrity Protection (SIP) and verify that it is enabled and functioning correctly. For environments with sensitive data, consider additional hardening such as disk encryption and monitoring for anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Finally, educate users about the risks of running untrusted software locally.

Description

A logic issue was addressed with improved checks. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.3, macOS Sonoma 14.7.3, macOS Ventura 13.7.3. An app may be able to modify protected parts of the file system.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-24121 is on system integrity, as unauthorized modification of protected file system areas can undermine trust in the operating system and potentially allow persistence mechanisms or tampering with security controls. While confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the integrity compromise can facilitate further attacks such as privilege escalation or malware persistence. For organizations, this could lead to unauthorized changes to critical system files, weakening endpoint security and increasing the risk of advanced persistent threats. The requirement for local privileges limits remote exploitation, but insider threats or malware already running with user-level access could exploit this vulnerability. The lack of user interaction requirement makes exploitation easier once local access is obtained. Overall, the impact is moderate in controlled environments but could be significant in high-security or sensitive contexts.

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 3 Apr 2026, 00:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-863

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats