CVE-2025-0101
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedA low privileged user can set the date of the devices to the 19th of January 2038 an therefore exceed the 32-Bit time limit. This causes some functions to work unexpected or stop working at all. Both during runtime and after a restart.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceA low-privileged user can set the device date to January 19, 2038, which exceeds the maximum value storable in a 32-bit signed integer (the Year 2038 problem). This causes time-dependent functions to fail or behave unexpectedly both during runtime and after system restart.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify user permissions for date/time changesReview system configuration files (e.g., /etc/timezone, /etc/systemd/system/timesyncd.service, or vendor-specific config) and check if low-privileged users or groups have write access to time-setting utilities (ntpdate, timedatectl, date command with sudo, or vendor-specific time set APIs)Affected if Low-privileged users (non-root or non-admin) can execute commands or access APIs that modify system date and time
-
Determine system time_t architectureOn Linux/Unix systems, run 'getconf _TIME_T' or 'arch' to check if the system uses 32-bit time_t; alternatively, check kernel architecture with 'uname -m' - 32-bit systems (i686, i386) typically use 32-bit time_tAffected if System uses 32-bit time_t (typically 32-bit operating systems or older 64-bit systems without 64-bit time support)
-
Verify time-related service configurationInspect time synchronization services (ntp, chrony, systemd-timesyncd) and date/time setting daemons for permission settings; check ACLs or SELinux policies governing time configurationAffected if Time services allow configuration changes by unprivileged users or lack proper access controls
-
Test if date can be set to 2038As a low-privileged user, attempt to set the system date to 2038-01-19 or later using available time-setting interfaces (date command via sudo, web UI, API, or CLI tool); observe if the operation succeedsAffected if Low-privileged user can successfully set the date to January 19, 2038 or later
A user is affected if low-privileged accounts can set the system date to values beyond January 19, 2038 on a system using 32-bit time_t.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataRestrict date/time configuration permissions to privileged users only, and migrate the system to use 64-bit time_t to prevent overflow.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0101 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-0101 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data