CVE-2025-47273VulnerabilityPublished 7 Jul 2025Updated 31 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: python-setuptools security update

Affects Red Hat python-setuptoolsSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 31 Oct 2026, 20:20 UTC

Severity

Medium

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

EPSS: 1.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 75% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Jul 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
Public exploit code: GitHub proofs of concept
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), GitHub proofs of concept, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 31 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

Red Hat has released updated python-setuptools packages (version 53.0.0-13.el9_6.1) that fix the path traversal vulnerability. Users of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and its variants should apply the available security update as described in the Red Hat advisory (https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258) to remediate this issue.

Description

A path traversal vulnerability (CVE-2025-47273) was identified in the setuptools PackageIndex component of the python-setuptools package used in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. This vulnerability could allow an attacker to manipulate file paths, potentially leading to unauthorized file access or modification. Red Hat has issued a security update to address this issue with a moderate severity rating.

Impact

The path traversal vulnerability could allow an attacker to access or overwrite files outside the intended directory structure when using the setuptools PackageIndex, potentially leading to unauthorized file system access or code execution depending on the context of use. The severity is rated moderate by Red Hat, indicating a significant but not critical risk.

Summary

The vulnerability CVE-2025-47273 affects the setuptools PackageIndex in the python-setuptools package distributed with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9. It is a path traversal flaw that could be exploited to access or modify files outside the intended directories. Red Hat Product Security has rated this issue as moderate severity and released updated packages to fix the vulnerability. The advisory references Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 and its Extended Update Support and Extended Life Cycle versions across multiple architectures. The fix is included in python-setuptools version 53.0.0-13.el9_6.1 and related packages.

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
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
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).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 31 Oct 2026, 18:25 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats