CVE-2025-52992VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-52992: NixOS Nix · Incorrect Permissions

Affects NixOS NixSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.2 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.2Low

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.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
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: 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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: 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 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 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
NixOS Nix	Affected =0 =2.25.0 =2.27.0 =2.29.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should promptly upgrade to the fixed versions of Nix, Lix, and Guix as specified: Nix versions 2.24.15, 2.26.4, 2.28.4, or 2.29.1 and later; Lix versions 2.91.2, 2.92.2, or 2.93.1 and later; and Guix version 1.4.0-38.0e79d5b or later. Until upgrades are applied, organizations should restrict local access to build environments and ensure that only trusted users have permissions to initiate builds or access store paths. Implement strict sandboxing and isolation of build processes to prevent unauthorized modification of store contents. Regularly audit file permissions on store directories and monitor for unexpected changes. Employ integrity verification mechanisms such as cryptographic hashes or signatures on build outputs to detect tampering. Additionally, consider using mandatory access controls (e.g., SELinux, AppArmor) to enforce strict policies around build and store directories. Educate developers and system administrators about the risk and ensure that build failure handling does not leave residual insecure permissions. Finally, maintain up-to-date monitoring and incident response capabilities to detect and respond to any suspicious activity related to package management and build systems.

Description

The Nix, Lix, and Guix package managers fail to properly set permissions when a derivation build fails. This may allow arbitrary processes to modify the content of a store outside of the build sandbox. This affects Nix before 2.24.15, 2.26.4, 2.28.4, and 2.29.1; Lix before 2.91.2, 2.92.2, and 2.93.1; and Guix before 1.4.0-38.0e79d5b.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those using Nix, Lix, or Guix in their software development pipelines or production environments, this vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity of their software supply chain. Organizations relying on these package managers for reproducible builds or secure deployment could face unauthorized modification of build artifacts, leading to potential insertion of malicious code or corrupted software components. This could result in compromised applications, data breaches, or further lateral movement within internal networks. The impact is primarily on integrity, with no direct confidentiality or availability effects reported. However, the scope change indicates that the vulnerability could affect resources beyond the initial compromised build environment. European entities in sectors such as finance, critical infrastructure, research institutions, and technology companies that adopt NixOS or related package managers are particularly at risk. Given the local access requirement and high attack complexity, the threat is more relevant in environments where multiple users have local system access or where build environments are shared or exposed. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits over time.

CWE-732Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
Implementation
When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user), and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
Architecture and Design
Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly.
Architecture and Design · Operation · Sandbox or Jail
Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Assessment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V4.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Incorrectly Configured Access Control Security Levels (opens in a new tab)
Signing Malicious Code (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 27 Jun 2025, 14:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-732

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats