CVE-2025-0374
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 · uneditedWhen etcupdate encounters conflicts while merging files, it saves a version containing conflict markers in /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts. This version does not preserve the mode of the input file, and is world-readable. This applies to files that would normally have restricted visibility, such as /etc/master.passwd. An unprivileged local user may be able to read encrypted root and user passwords from the temporary master.passwd file created in /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts. This is possible only when conflicts within the password file arise during an update, and the unprotected file is deleted when conflicts are resolved.
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 confidenceWhen etcupdate encounters merge conflicts during system updates, it saves a copy of conflicting files (including /etc/master.passwd) to /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts without preserving original file permissions, making the file world-readable. An unprivileged local user can read encrypted password hashes from this temporary unprotected file.
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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Check if conflict directory existsls -la /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts 2>/dev/null || echo "Directory does not exist"Affected if Directory exists and contains files, especially if they are world-readable
-
List files in the conflicts directoryfind /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts -type f -ls 2>/dev/nullAffected if Files such as master.passwd, passwd, or other sensitive configuration files are present
-
Verify file permissions on conflict filesstat -c "%a %n" /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts/* 2>/dev/nullAffected if Files have permissions 644 or more permissive (world-readable)
-
Check if master.passwd appears in conflictsfind /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts -name "*master.passwd*" -o -name "*passwd*" 2>/dev/null | xargs -I {} ls -la {} 2>/dev/nullAffected if A copy of master.passwd or similar shadow files exists in the conflicts directory
-
Verify unprivileged user can read conflict filessu -m -c "cat /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts/*/etc/master.passwd 2>&1" $(whoami) || echo "Permission denied (good)"Affected if An unprivileged user account can successfully read contents of files in the conflicts directory
User is affected if /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts exists, contains copies of sensitive files like master.passwd, and those files have permissive (world-readable) permissions allowing unprivileged access to password hashes.
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 access to /var/db/etcupdate/conflicts and monitor/delete any conflict files promptly, especially after system updates; apply vendor patches to etcupdate when available.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0374 — 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-2025-0374 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