VulnerabilityPublished 23 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-52968: freedesktop xdg-utils · Unprotected Alternate Channel

Affects freedesktop xdg-utilsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.7 Low : upgrade to 1.2.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.2.2

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 23 Jun 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

Upgrade freedesktop/xdg-utils to 1.2.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Freedesktopfreedesktop/xdg-utils`pkg:deb/freedesktop/xdg-utils`Other threats	Affected <1.2.2	Fixed in 1.2.2

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

AI-suggested

2) Implement strict endpoint security controls to limit the execution of untrusted or unsolicited xdg-open commands, including application whitelisting and restricting user permissions where feasible. 3) Educate users on the risks of interacting with untrusted links or content that may trigger xdg-open, emphasizing cautious behavior when opening URLs or files from unknown sources. 4) Employ browser and desktop environment security features that can help isolate or sandbox processes invoking xdg-open, reducing the risk of CSRF exploitation. 5) Monitor logs for unusual xdg-open invocations or patterns that could indicate exploitation attempts. 6) Review and harden cookie policies and SameSite attribute configurations in web applications to minimize the impact of any potential cookie leakage. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling the invocation context of xdg-open and user behavior, which are critical given the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

xdg-open in xdg-utils through 1.2.1 can send requests containing SameSite=Strict cookies, which can facilitate CSRF. (For example, xdg-open could be modified to, by default, associate x-scheme-handler/https with the execution of a browser with command-line options that arrange for an empty cookie store, although this would add substantial complexity, and would not be considered a desirable or expected behavior by all users.) NOTE: this is disputed because integrations of xdg-open typically do not provide information about whether the xdg-open command and arguments were manually entered by a user, or whether they were the result of a navigation from content in an untrusted origin.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-52968 is generally low but context-dependent. Since xdg-utils is widely used in Linux desktop environments, organizations with significant Linux workstation deployments could see some risk, particularly if users interact with untrusted content that could trigger xdg-open commands. The primary risk is potential leakage or misuse of SameSite=Strict cookies, which could lead to limited confidentiality breaches such as session token exposure or unauthorized request initiation. However, the absence of integrity or availability impact and the requirement for user interaction reduce the overall threat level. Critical infrastructure or sectors with high reliance on Linux desktops (e.g., research institutions, software development firms, and certain government agencies) may need to pay closer attention. The vulnerability does not affect server-side components directly, limiting its impact on backend systems. Given the disputed nature of the vulnerability and lack of known exploits, the immediate risk is low, but it should be monitored as part of a broader security posture.

Summary

CVE-2025-52968 is a vulnerability identified in the freedesktop xdg-utils package, specifically affecting the xdg-open utility through version 1.2.1. The issue relates to an unprotected alternate channel (CWE-420) where xdg-open can send requests containing SameSite=Strict cookies. SameSite cookies are designed to prevent cross-site request forgery (CSRF) by restricting how cookies are sent with cross-origin requests. However, in this case, xdg-open may inadvertently send these cookies in contexts that facilitate CSRF attacks. The vulnerability arises because xdg-open does not reliably distinguish whether the command and its arguments were initiated directly by a user or triggered by navigation from untrusted content. This ambiguity can be exploited by an attacker to craft requests that leverage the presence of SameSite=Strict cookies, potentially allowing unauthorized actions on behalf of the user. Despite this, the vulnerability is disputed due to the typical integration patterns of xdg-open, which often do not expose sufficient context to exploit this behavior effectively. The CVSS v3.1 base score is 2.7 (low severity), reflecting the requirement for local access (AV:L), high attack complexity (AC:H), no privileges required (PR:N), and user interaction (UI:R). The impact is limited to confidentiality with no direct integrity or availability effects. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild, and no patches have been linked yet. The vulnerability's scope is confined to systems using vulnerable versions of xdg-utils, a common utility in many Linux desktop environments for opening URLs or files with the default applications.

CWE-420Unprotected Alternate Channel (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product protects a primary channel, but it does not use the same level of protection for an alternate channel.
Architecture and Design
Identify all alternate channels and use the same protection mechanisms that are used for the primary channels.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.14.1 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (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 23 Jun 2025, 15:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-420

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats