CVE-2025-8283VulnerabilityPublished 28 Jul 2025Updated 1 Sep 2026

CVE-2025-8283: netavark · External Control of System or Configuration Setting

Affects netavarkSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.7 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.7Low

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% 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:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: 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: 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 28 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: 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.

cwe-15

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubcontainers/netavark`pkg:github/containers/netavark`Other threats	Affected =0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Until a patch is available, users should be aware of the DNS resolution behavior and consider isolating container DNS configurations or avoiding container hostnames that could match external domains in the host's search domains.

Description

A vulnerability was found in the netavark package, a network stack for containers used with Podman. Due to dns.podman search domain being removed, netavark may return external servers if a valid A/AAAA record is sent as a response. When creating a container with a given name, this name will be used as the hostname for the container itself, as the podman's search domain is not added anymore the container is using the host's resolv.conf, and the DNS resolver will try to look into the search domains contained on it. If one of the domains contain a name with the same hostname as the running container, the connection will forward to unexpected external servers.

Impact

The impact is limited to potential information leakage or redirection of DNS queries to external servers, which may lead to unintended network communication. The CVSS score of 3.7 (low severity) reflects limited confidentiality impact and no integrity or availability impact. There are no known exploits in the wild.

Summary

The vulnerability in netavark occurs due to the removal of the dns.podman search domain, which leads containers to rely on the host's DNS resolver configuration. When a container is created with a specific name, that name is used as the container's hostname. Because the podman search domain is no longer appended, DNS resolution uses the host's search domains. If any of these domains contain a name matching the container's hostname, DNS queries may be redirected to external servers, resulting in external control of system or configuration settings.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…