CVE-2025-34204
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 · uneditedVasion Print (formerly PrinterLogic) Virtual Appliance Host and Application (VA and SaaS deployments) contains multiple Docker containers that run primary application processes (for example PHP workers, Node.js servers and custom binaries) as the root user. This increases the blast radius of a container compromise and enables lateral movement and host compromise when a container is breached.
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 confidenceVasion Print Virtual Appliance runs multiple Docker containers with primary application processes (PHP workers, Node.js servers, custom binaries) executing as the root user. This configuration allows a compromised container to potentially escape isolation, move laterally across containers, and compromise the underlying host system.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE dataall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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.
-
List Docker containers running on the Vasion Virtual ApplianceRun 'docker ps -a --format "{{.Names}}"' on the appliance host to enumerate all containersAffected if Any containers exist (the appliance runs multiple containers as root by default)
-
Identify the user each container runs asRun 'docker inspect --format "{{.Config.User}}" <container_name>' for each container to see if the USER directive is set to root or emptyAffected if The output is empty or shows root/0, indicating the container runs as root
-
Check Dockerfile or docker-compose configuration for USER directiveExamine the Dockerfiles or docker-compose.yml files used to build the containers for a USER directive that specifies a non-root userAffected if No USER directive is present, or USER is set to root or not set at all, meaning containers default to root execution
-
Verify Docker security runtime optionsRun 'docker inspect <container_name>' and check the 'HostConfig' section for 'SecurityOpt' or 'UsernsMode' settings that would prevent root executionAffected if No user namespace isolation (UsernsMode is not set to 'host' or a custom mapping) and no SecurityOpt like 'no-new-privileges' are configured
The environment is affected if any Docker container in the Vasion Virtual Appliance runs as the root user (USER directive is empty/root/0), as this allows trivial privilege escalation upon container compromise.
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 dataImplement non-root container execution by updating Dockerfiles to use USER directives, creating dedicated non-privileged service accounts, and validating application functionality after privilege reduction.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-34204 — 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-2025-34204 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