CVE-2025-54291VulnerabilityPublished 2 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-54291: Canonical LXD · Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information

Affects Canonical LXDSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 Oct 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 2026-10-25.

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
Canonical LXD	Affected =6.0 =5.21	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement the following specific mitigation steps: 1) Upgrade LXD installations to version 6.5 or 5.21.4 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. 2) If immediate patching is not feasible, restrict access to the LXD images API by implementing network-level controls such as firewall rules or VPN access to limit exposure to trusted users only. 3) Employ web application firewalls (WAFs) or API gateways capable of normalizing or blocking anomalous HTTP status code patterns that could be used for project enumeration. 4) Monitor logs for unusual or repeated HTTP requests to the images API that may indicate reconnaissance attempts. 5) Conduct internal audits to identify and remove any unnecessary exposure of LXD management interfaces to public or untrusted networks. 6) Educate DevOps and security teams about the risks of information leakage through error messages and encourage secure API design and error handling practices. 7) Maintain an up-to-date inventory of container projects and their exposure to quickly identify and respond to suspicious activities related to project enumeration.

Description

Information disclosure in images API in Canonical LXD before 6.5 and 5.21.4 on all platforms allows unauthenticated remote attackers to determine project existence via differing HTTP status code responses.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-54291 lies in the potential for attackers to gather intelligence about containerized environments managed by LXD. By enumerating existing projects, attackers can identify valuable targets or infer organizational structure and deployment strategies. This reconnaissance capability can facilitate subsequent attacks such as privilege escalation, lateral movement, or targeted exploitation of other vulnerabilities. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability of data or services, it lowers the barrier for attackers to plan more effective attacks. Organizations relying heavily on LXD for container orchestration, especially in sectors with sensitive data or critical infrastructure, may face increased risk if this vulnerability is left unpatched. Additionally, compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR may be impacted if sensitive project information is indirectly exposed. The lack of authentication requirement and ease of exploitation increase the urgency for mitigation in environments exposed to untrusted networks.

CWE-209Generation of Error Message Containing Sensitive Information (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product generates an error message that includes sensitive information about its environment, users, or associated data.
Implementation
Ensure that error messages only contain minimal details that are useful to the intended audience and no one else. The messages need to strike the balance between being too cryptic (which can confuse users) or being too detailed (which may reveal more than intended).
Implementation
Handle exceptions internally and do not display errors containing potentially sensitive information to a user.
Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Use naming conventions and strong types to make it easier to spot when sensitive data is being used. When creating structures, objects, or other complex entities, separate the sensitive and non-sensitive data as much as possible.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
Logging (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.4 (opens in a new tab)
V14.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
V7.3.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Fuzzing for application mapping (opens in a new tab)
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Query System for Information (opens in a new tab)
Blind SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/canonical/lxd/security/advisories/GHSA-xch9-h8qw-85c7 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Oct 2025, 10:06 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-209

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats