CVE-2025-46811
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 Missing Authorization vulnerability in SUSE Linux Manager allows anyone with the ability to connect to port 443 of SUSE Manager is able to run any command as root on any client. This issue affects Container suse/manager/5.0/x86_64/server:5.0.5.7.30.1: from ? before 5.0.27-150600.3.33.1; Image SLES15-SP4-Manager-Server-4-3-BYOS: from ? before 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2; Image SLES15-SP4-Manager-Server-4-3-BYOS-Azure: from ? before 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2; Image SLES15-SP4-Manager-Server-4-3-BYOS-EC2: from ? before 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2; Image SLES15-SP4-Manager-Server-4-3-BYOS-GCE: from ? before 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2; SUSE Manager Server Module 4.3: from ? before 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2.
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 confidenceSUSE Linux Manager has a missing authorization vulnerability allowing any unauthenticated user who can reach port 443 to execute arbitrary commands as root on any managed client systems. This is a complete authorization bypass where the application fails to verify user permissions before allowing execution of commands on managed endpoints.
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
- 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.
-
Verify SUSE Linux Manager is installedRun 'rpm -qa | grep -i spacewalk' or 'zypper se spacewalk' or check for /etc/rhn directory which contains configuration for SUSE Linux ManagerAffected if The product is not installed on the system
-
Identify the installed versionRun 'rpm -q spacewalk-backend' or 'rpm -q spacewalk-server' depending on the component, or check /etc/os-release for SUSE Manager version indicatorsAffected if The version cannot be determined or is below the fixed releases
-
Compare your version to affected rangesFor v5.0, compare against 5.0.27-150600.3.33.1; for v4.3, compare against 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2. Versions earlier than these are vulnerable.Affected if The installed version is v5.0 before 5.0.27-150600.3.33.1 or v4.3 before 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2
-
Confirm port 443 is accessibleCheck if port 443 is listening and exposed using 'ss -tlnp | grep :443' or 'netstat -tlnp | grep :443' and verify network accessibility from untrusted sourcesAffected if Port 443 is open and reachable by unauthenticated/untrusted network callers
A system is affected if SUSE Linux Manager is installed with version v5.0 before 5.0.27-150600.3.33.1 or v4.3 before 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2 and port 443 is network-accessible to untrusted users.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply the vendor patches (5.0.27-150600.3.33.1 for v5.0, 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2 for v4.3) to restore proper authorization checks. Until patched, restrict network access to port 443 to only trusted sources.
SUSE Manager 5.0.x: upgrade to 5.0.27-150600.3.33.1 or later; SUSE Manager 4.3.x: upgrade to 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2 or later
- Identify the currently installed SUSE Manager version using 'rpm -q susemanager' or checking the container image tag
- For SUSE Manager 5.0.x deployments: Upgrade to version 5.0.27-150600.3.33.1 or later by updating the container image to susemanager/5.0/x86_64/server:5.0.27-150600.3.33.1 or newer
- For SUSE Manager 4.3.x deployments (including BYOS variants): Upgrade to version 4.3.87-150400.3.110.2 or later by applying the relevant SUSE patch or upgrading the image
- After upgrade, verify the new version is running using 'spacewalk-service status' or checking the web UI version information
- Test that the authorization controls are properly enforced by attempting an action that would have previously succeeded without authorization
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46811 — 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-2025-46811 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