CVE-2025-47273VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jul 2025Updated 1 Nov 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenShift Builds 1.4.1

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Compare

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 1 Nov 2026, 08:20 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 10 Jul 2025
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 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 recommends upgrading existing users of Red Hat OpenShift Builds from version 1.3.z to 1.4.1 to address this vulnerability. No other mitigations meeting Red Hat's criteria for ease of use, applicability, and stability are currently available. Users should follow Red Hat's advisory and update to the fixed version.

Description

CVE-2025-47273 is a path traversal vulnerability in the Python setuptools library used by Red Hat OpenShift Builds. It allows an attacker with limited code execution privileges to write files outside the intended temporary directory by manipulating package download URLs, bypassing filename sanitization. This can lead to unauthorized overwrites of important system files, potentially causing persistent code execution or system misconfiguration. The vulnerability does not expose confidential data or enable privilege escalation beyond the same security boundary. Red Hat rates this vulnerability as Moderate and recommends upgrading from OpenShift Builds 1.3.z to 1.4.1.

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker with limited code execution privileges to write arbitrary files outside the intended directory, potentially overwriting critical system files. This can lead to persistent code execution, unauthorized behavior, or system misconfiguration. It does not expose confidential data, does not require user interaction, and does not cross security boundaries such as container or kernel boundaries. The vulnerability does not inherently cause denial of service or availability impact. The integrity of the system within the same security boundary is at risk.

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 1 Nov 2026, 06:52 UTC

Public exploits and detectionGitHub proofs of concept

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats