CVE-2025-12744
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 flaw was found in the ABRT daemon’s handling of user-supplied mount information.ABRT copies up to 12 characters from an untrusted input and places them directly into a shell command (docker inspect %s) without proper validation. An unprivileged local user can craft a payload that injects shell metacharacters, causing the root-running ABRT process to execute attacker-controlled commands and ultimately gain full root privileges.
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 · high confidenceThe ABRT daemon contains a command injection vulnerability where it copies up to 12 characters from user-supplied mount information and directly places them into a shell command (docker inspect %s) without validation. An unprivileged local attacker can inject shell metacharacters into this input, causing the root-running ABRT process to execute arbitrary attacker-controlled commands and achieve full root privileges.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Verify ABRT is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i abrt' (RHEL/Fedora) or check for /usr/sbin/abrtd and /etc/abrt/ directoryAffected if No ABRT packages found means not affected
-
Check ABRT daemon versionRun 'abrtd --version' or 'rpm -q abrt' to get the installed version numberAffected if Version falls within vulnerable range (check against CVE-2025-12744 patch status); unpatched versions are affected
-
Determine if ABRT daemon is runningRun 'systemctl status abrtd' or 'ps aux | grep abrtd'Affected if ABRT daemon not running reduces exposure but config files may still be exploitable
-
Check if docker plugin is enabled in ABRTExamine /etc/abrt/plugins/ directory for docker configuration files, or check /etc/abrt/abrt.conf for 'EnablePlugins' section containing 'docker'Affected if Docker plugin is listed in enabled plugins means the vulnerable code path exists
-
Inspect ABRT docker configurationCheck configuration files in /etc/abrt/plugins/ for docker-related settings that enable 'docker inspect' functionalityAffected if Docker inspect feature is enabled in ABRT config means the vulnerable shell command construction can be triggered
A system is affected if ABRT daemon is installed, running, has the docker plugin enabled with inspect functionality, and the installed version is unpatched for CVE-2025-12744.
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 dataThe vulnerability requires code-level remediation: implement strict input validation to sanitize mount information before use in shell commands, preferably using allowlists and avoiding shell invocation entirely. Consider restricting ABRT daemon privileges or disabling docker inspect functionality until a patch is applied.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-12744 — 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-2025-12744 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