CVE-2025-43348VulnerabilityPublished 4 Nov 2025Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2025-43348: Apple macOS · An app may bypass Gatekeeper checks

Affects Apple macOSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium · fixed in 15.7.2 : update Apple macOS when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 15.7.2

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 4 Nov 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 2026-10-26.

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
Apple macOS	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Apply the official Apple security updates immediately: upgrade to macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, Sonoma 14.8.2, or Tahoe 26.1 or later versions where the vulnerability is fixed. 2. Enforce strict application installation policies using Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions to restrict app installations to trusted sources only. 3. Educate users about the risks of running untrusted applications and the importance of Gatekeeper warnings to reduce the likelihood of social engineering exploitation. 4. Monitor endpoint security logs for unusual application execution patterns or Gatekeeper bypass attempts. 5. Implement application whitelisting to limit execution to approved software. 6. Use endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to detect and respond to suspicious behaviors that may indicate exploitation attempts. 7. Regularly audit macOS systems for compliance with security policies and patch levels. 8. Consider network segmentation to limit the impact of a compromised macOS device within the organizational network. These measures combined reduce the risk of exploitation beyond simply applying patches.

Description

A logic issue was addressed with improved validation. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, macOS Sonoma 14.8.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1. An app may bypass Gatekeeper checks.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-43348 is the potential for attackers to run untrusted or malicious applications on macOS systems by bypassing Gatekeeper protections. This undermines the integrity of the system by allowing unauthorized code execution, which could lead to malware installation, persistence, or further exploitation. Although confidentiality and availability are not directly affected, the integrity compromise can facilitate subsequent attacks such as privilege escalation, data tampering, or lateral movement within networks. Organizations relying on macOS devices, especially in sensitive or high-security environments, face increased risk of targeted attacks or malware infections if this vulnerability is exploited. The requirement for local access and user interaction limits remote exploitation but does not eliminate risk, as social engineering or phishing could induce users to run malicious apps. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate threat but does not preclude future exploitation. Failure to patch could lead to increased attack surface and potential breaches, particularly in sectors with high macOS adoption such as technology, creative industries, and education.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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, 02:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats