CVE-2025-47273VulnerabilityPublished 11 Aug 2025Updated 11 Oct 2026

SUSE · security update for python3.11-setuptools

Affects SUSESource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 7.4.1_2 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.4.1_2, 2.15.4_4

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Aug 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.

What to do

Upgrade pip-tools to 7.4.1_2; shub to 2.15.4_4.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Homebrewpip-tools`pkg:brew/pip-tools`Other threats	Affected >=7.3.0_1 <7.4.1_2	Fixed in 7.4.1_2
Homebrewshub`pkg:brew/shub`Other threats	Affected >=2.15.3 <2.15.4_4	Fixed in 2.15.4_4

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

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated python-setuptools packages that address this vulnerability. Users of affected Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 and 10.0 versions, as well as Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.3.z, should apply the provided updates (e.g., python-setuptools-39.2.0-7.el8_8.3) as detailed in Red Hat advisories RHSA-2025:11427 and RHSA-2025:10787. Refer to Red Hat's official update instructions at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated by the vendor.

Description

### Summary A path traversal vulnerability in `PackageIndex` was fixed in setuptools version 78.1.1 ### Details ``` def _download_url(self, url, tmpdir): # Determine download filename # name, _fragment = egg_info_for_url(url) if name: while '..' in name: name = name.replace('..', '.').replace('\\', '_') else: name = "__downloaded__" # default if URL has no path contents if name.endswith('.[egg.zip](http://egg.zip/)'): name = name[:-4] # strip the extra .zip before download --> filename = os.path.join(tmpdir, name) ``` Here: https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/blob/6ead555c5fb29bc57fe6105b1bffc163f56fd558/setuptools/package_index.py#L810C1-L825C88 `os.path.join()` discards the first argument `tmpdir` if the second begins with a slash or drive letter. `name` is derived from a URL without sufficient sanitization. While there is some attempt to sanitize by replacing instances of '..' with '.', it is insufficient. ### Risk Assessment As easy_install and package_index are deprecated, the exploitation surface is reduced. However, it seems this could be exploited in a similar fashion like https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-r9hx-vwmv-q579, and as described by POC 4 in https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cx63-2mw6-8hw5 report: via malicious URLs present on the pages of a package index. ### Impact An attacker would be allowed to write files to arbitrary locations on the filesystem with the permissions of the process running the Python code, which could escalate to RCE depending on the context. ### References https://huntr.com/bounties/d6362117-ad57-4e83-951f-b8141c6e7ca5 https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/4946

Impact

The vulnerability could allow unauthorized path traversal attacks via the setuptools PackageIndex, potentially leading to unauthorized file access or modification. Red Hat rates the impact as moderate. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time.

Summary

CVE-2025-47273 is a path traversal vulnerability in the setuptools PackageIndex component of python-setuptools. This vulnerability allows an attacker to potentially manipulate file paths in a way that could lead to unauthorized file access or modification. Red Hat has issued security advisories (RHSA-2025:11427 and RHSA-2025:10787) addressing this issue for Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions 8.8 and 10.0, including related products such as Red Hat OpenShift Builds. The vulnerability is rated as moderate in severity by Red Hat. No CVSS base score is currently available. The advisories provide updated package versions that fix the issue.

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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Aug 2026, 17:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats