VulnerabilityPublished 4 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-70342: erase-install · Incorrect Permissions

Affects erase-installSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.6 Medium : upgrade to 40.4 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.6Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 40.4

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 Mar 2026
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 grahampugh/erase-install to 40.4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubgrahampugh/erase-install`pkg:github/grahampugh/erase-install`Other threats	Affected <40.4	Fixed in 40.4

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-70342, organizations should immediately update erase-install to version v40.4 or later that includes commit 2c31239 or subsequent patches addressing this vulnerability. If immediate patching is not feasible, implement strict file system permissions on /var/tmp to prevent unauthorized creation of named pipes or symbolic links, especially restricting write access to trusted administrators only. Employ monitoring and alerting for suspicious named pipe creation or unusual file system activity in /var/tmp. Consider running erase-install operations in isolated or sandboxed environments to limit exposure. Additionally, review and harden deployment workflows to minimize credential exposure during reinstall or erase processes. Educate system administrators about the risks of insecure temporary file handling and encourage regular audits of deployment tools. Finally, integrate credential rotation policies to limit the impact of any potential credential leakage.

Description

erase-install prior to v40.4 commit 2c31239 writes swiftDialog credential output to a hardcoded path /var/tmp/dialog.json. This allows an unauthenticated attacker to intercept admin credentials entered during reinstall/erase operations via creating a named pipe.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-70342 is the compromise of administrator credentials during critical system reinstall or erase operations. If exploited, an attacker can gain unauthorized access to administrative credentials without authentication, leading to potential full system compromise. This threatens confidentiality and integrity of systems managed via erase-install, especially in environments where macOS devices are frequently reimaged or erased. The vulnerability could facilitate lateral movement, privilege escalation, or persistent access if credentials are harvested. Organizations relying on erase-install for mass deployment or recovery operations face increased risk of insider or remote attackers intercepting sensitive credentials. The ease of exploitation and lack of required authentication amplify the threat, potentially impacting IT infrastructure security and operational continuity. Although availability impact is limited, the breach of admin credentials can indirectly lead to denial of service or data loss through malicious administrative actions. The scope includes all systems using vulnerable erase-install versions with swiftDialog prior to the fixed commit, particularly in enterprise macOS environments.

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 4 Mar 2026, 15:17 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-732

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats