Apple MacOS · Kwetsbaarheden Verholpen
Affects Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum AppleSource GCVE Database
Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.
Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 16:15 UTC
Thin evidence
One scorer or none| CNA (GitHub_M) | CVSS 3.1 | 5.9 |
|---|
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H- Attack Vector
- Network
- Attack Complexity
- High
- Privileges Required
- None
- User Interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
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: None
- There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
- Integrity: None
- There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
- Availability: High
- There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).
Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.
Exploitation evidence
Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 22 Aug 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 30 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.
- Weaponized
- A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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
AI-suggested
Users and administrators should apply the macOS updates Sonoma 14.8.2, Sequoia 15.7.2, and Tahoe 26.1 as provided by Apple to remediate the vulnerabilities. Since the vendor has released these updates, applying them is the recommended mitigation. No additional mitigation guidance is provided or necessary based on the available data.
Description
Apple has addressed multiple vulnerabilities in macOS versions Sonoma 14.8.2, Sequoia 15.7.2, and Tahoe 26.1 through security updates. The specific vulnerabilities are not detailed in the provided information. No CVSS score or detailed impact information is available. There is no indication of known exploitation in the wild. The affected versions are not explicitly listed beyond the mention of the updated macOS releases.
Impact
The impact cannot be precisely assessed due to lack of detailed information. The vulnerabilities are significant enough to warrant security updates across multiple macOS versions. No known exploitation in the wild has been reported, and no CVSS score is available to quantify severity.
Summary
This entry reports that Apple has fixed vulnerabilities in macOS Sonoma 14.8.2, macOS Sequoia 15.7.2, and macOS Tahoe 26.1. The vulnerabilities correspond to CVE-2024-43398 and related CVEs but lack detailed technical descriptions or impact metrics. No public exploit code or confirmed active exploitation is noted. The update addresses multiple security weaknesses identified by various CWEs, including privilege issues and information disclosure, but specifics are not provided.
- CWE-776Improper Restriction of Recursive Entity References in DTDs (Billion Laughs Attack) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A02:2025: Security Misconfiguration (opens in a new tab)
The product uses XML documents and allows their structure to be defined with a Document Type Definition (DTD), but it does not properly control the number of recursive definitions of entities.
Operation
If possible, prohibit the use of DTDs or use an XML parser that limits the expansion of recursive DTD entities.
Implementation
Before parsing XML files with associated DTDs, scan for recursive entity declarations and do not continue parsing potentially explosive content.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-1333Inefficient Regular Expression Complexity (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product uses a regular expression with a worst-case computational complexity that is inefficient and possibly exponential.
Architecture and Design
Use regular expressions that do not support backtracking, e.g. by removing nested quantifiers.
System Configuration
Set backtracking limits in the configuration of the regular expression implementation, such as PHP's pcre.backtrack_limit. Also consider limits on execution time for the process.
Implementation
Do not use regular expressions with untrusted input. If regular expressions must be used, avoid using backtracking in the expression.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-444Inconsistent Interpretation of HTTP Requests (HTTP Request Smuggling) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product acts as an intermediary HTTP agent (such as a proxy or firewall) in the data flow between two entities such as a client and server, but it does not interpret malformed HTTP requests or responses in ways that are consistent with how the messages will be processed by those entities that are at the ultimate destination.
Implementation
Use a web server that employs a strict HTTP parsing procedure, such as Apache.
Implementation
Use only SSL communication.
Implementation
Terminate the client session after each request.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-276Incorrect Default Permissions (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
During installation, installed file permissions are set to allow anyone to modify those files.
Architecture and Design · Operation
The architecture needs to access and modification attributes for files to only those users who actually require those actions.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-532Insertion of Sensitive Information into Log File (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A09:2025: Security Logging & Alerting Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product writes sensitive information to a log file.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Consider seriously the sensitivity of the information written into log files. Do not write secrets into the log files.
Distribution
Remove debug log files before deploying the application into production.
Operation
Protect log files against unauthorized read/write.
- Attack patterns
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-863Incorrect Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #17OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action, but it does not correctly perform the check.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-362Concurrent Execution using Shared Resource with Improper Synchronization (Race Condition) (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a concurrent code sequence that requires temporary, exclusive access to a shared resource, but a timing window exists in which the shared resource can be modified by another code sequence operating concurrently.
Architecture and Design
In languages that support it, use synchronization primitives. Only wrap these around critical code to minimize the impact on performance.
Architecture and Design
Use thread-safe capabilities such as the data access abstraction in Spring.
Architecture and Design
Minimize the usage of shared resources in order to remove as much complexity as possible from the control flow and to reduce the likelihood of unexpected conditions occurring.
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- CWE-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory (Path Traversal) (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
- OWASP Cheat Sheets
- OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
- Attack patterns
- Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
- Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
- Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
- Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
- Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
- GCVE source
- db.gcve.eu
- Csaf Category
- csaf_security_advisory
- Csaf Version
- 2.0
- Publisher
- Nationaal Cyber Security Centrum
- Advisory ID
- NCSC-2025-0351
- CVE Count
- 111
- Additional Cves
- CVE-2024-49761, CVE-2025-6442, CVE-2025-30465, CVE-2025-31199, CVE-2025-32462, CVE-2025-43292, CVE-2025-43322, CVE-2025-43334, CVE-2025-43335, CVE-2025-43336, CVE-2025-43337, CVE-2025-43338, CVE-2025-43348, CVE-2025-43351, CVE-2025-43361, CVE-2025-43364, CVE-2025-43372, CVE-2025-43373, CVE-2025-43377, CVE-2025-43378, CVE-2025-43379, CVE-2025-43380, CVE-2025-43381, CVE-2025-43382, CVE-2025-43383, CVE-2025-43384, CVE-2025-43385, CVE-2025-43386, CVE-2025-43387, CVE-2025-43388, CVE-2025-43389, CVE-2025-43390, CVE-2025-43391, CVE-2025-43392, CVE-2025-43393, CVE-2025-43394, CVE-2025-43395, CVE-2025-43396, CVE-2025-43397, CVE-2025-43398, CVE-2025-43399, CVE-2025-43401, CVE-2025-43402, CVE-2025-43404, CVE-2025-43405, CVE-2025-43406, CVE-2025-43407, CVE-2025-43408, CVE-2025-43409, CVE-2025-43411, CVE-2025-43412, CVE-2025-43413, CVE-2025-43414, CVE-2025-43420, CVE-2025-43421, CVE-2025-43423, CVE-2025-43424, CVE-2025-43425, CVE-2025-43426, CVE-2025-43427, CVE-2025-43429, CVE-2025-43430, CVE-2025-43431, CVE-2025-43432, CVE-2025-43433, CVE-2025-43434, CVE-2025-43435, CVE-2025-43436, CVE-2025-43438, CVE-2025-43440, CVE-2025-43441, CVE-2025-43443, CVE-2025-43444, CVE-2025-43445, CVE-2025-43446, CVE-2025-43447, CVE-2025-43448, CVE-2025-43455, CVE-2025-43457, CVE-2025-43458, CVE-2025-43461, CVE-2025-43462, CVE-2025-43463, CVE-2025-43464, CVE-2025-43465, CVE-2025-43466, CVE-2025-43467, CVE-2025-43468, CVE-2025-43469, CVE-2025-43471, CVE-2025-43472, CVE-2025-43473, CVE-2025-43474, CVE-2025-43476, CVE-2025-43477, CVE-2025-43478, CVE-2025-43479, CVE-2025-43480, CVE-2025-43481, CVE-2025-43493, CVE-2025-43496, CVE-2025-43497, CVE-2025-43498, CVE-2025-43499, CVE-2025-43500, CVE-2025-43502, CVE-2025-43503, CVE-2025-43506, CVE-2025-43507, CVE-2025-53906
References
Community reviews
Related threats
- Apple iOS en iPadOS · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenHighVulnerability
- Apple iOS en iPadOS · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- Apple macOS · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability
- GitLab door GitLab Inc · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenHighVulnerability
- WatchGuard Fireware OS · Kwetsbaarheden VerholpenUnratedVulnerability