CVE-2025-54313VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jul 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-54313: eslint-config-prettier · Embedded Malicious Code

Affects eslint-config-prettierSource CVE Database V5

Exploited in the wild · KEV due 12 Feb 2026 · 5% EPSS : apply the vendor's fix or mitigations to eslint-config-prettier now.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

KEV deadline: 12 Feb 2026 US federal agencies must patch by this date; a sensible deadline for everyone else.
EPSS: 5.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 92% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: High
Availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, 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: 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: 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: 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

t = 0 is the CVE’s publication on cve.org

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Jul 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: evidence found.
Listed in CISA KEV 187 days after disclosure
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

CVE published
on cve.org
2025-07-19, t = 0
In Threat Radar
record ingested
2025-07-1917:01Z, the same day as disclosure
Added to CISA KEV (opens in a new tab)
exploitation confirmed
2026-01-22, 187 days after disclosure
KEV remediation due
US federal deadline
2026-02-12, 208 days after disclosure

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), CISA KEV (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

Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
npmeslint-config-prettier`pkg:npm/eslint-config-prettier`Other threats	Affected =8.10.1 =9.1.1 =10.1.6 =10.1.7	Fixed in–

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

Description

eslint-config-prettier 8.10.1, 9.1.1, 10.1.6, and 10.1.7 has embedded malicious code for a supply chain compromise. Installing an affected package executes an install.js file that launches the node-gyp.dll malware on Windows.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-54313 is the compromise of software supply chains through trusted development dependencies. Organizations that use the affected versions of eslint-config-prettier risk executing malicious code during package installation, potentially leading to unauthorized code execution and integrity breaches in development and build environments. This can result in the injection of backdoors, data tampering, or further malware deployment within corporate networks. The malware payload node-gyp.dll could facilitate persistence, lateral movement, or data exfiltration on Windows systems. Since eslint-config-prettier is commonly used in continuous integration and deployment pipelines, compromised build environments can propagate malicious code into production software, affecting end users and customers. The vulnerability can undermine trust in open-source ecosystems and cause significant operational disruption, intellectual property theft, and reputational damage. Although no availability impact is indicated, the integrity and confidentiality risks are substantial, especially for organizations with large JavaScript/TypeScript codebases and automated build processes.

Mitigation

1. Immediately audit all development and CI/CD environments for installations of eslint-config-prettier versions 8.10.1, 9.1.1, 10.1.6, and 10.1.7. 2. Remove or replace affected package versions with known clean versions once available; if no patched versions exist, temporarily remove eslint-config-prettier from the dependency tree or use alternative formatting configurations. 3. Conduct thorough endpoint and build environment scans for the presence of node-gyp.dll and other suspicious artifacts, especially on Windows systems. 4. Implement strict supply chain security measures such as verifying package integrity via checksums or signatures before installation. 5. Employ network segmentation and least privilege principles in build environments to limit malware impact. 6. Monitor for unusual network or process activity originating from development machines and build servers. 7. Educate developers and DevOps teams about supply chain risks and encourage use of tools that detect malicious package behavior. 8. Maintain up-to-date backups of critical build and source code repositories to enable recovery if compromise is detected. 9. Engage with package maintainers and security communities for updates and patches. 10. Consider adopting reproducible builds and dependency whitelisting to reduce exposure to malicious packages.

CWE-506Embedded Malicious Code (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains code that appears to be malicious in nature.
Implementation · Operation
Remove the malicious code and start an effort to ensure that no more malicious code exists. This may require a detailed review of all code, as it is possible to hide a serious attack in only one or two lines of code.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
Infrastructure as Code (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Infected Software (opens in a new tab)
Embed Virus into DLL (opens in a new tab)
Hiding Malicious Data or Code within Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

Timeline

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 03:38 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-506

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats