Node.jsApplication
CVE-2025-55132
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 in Node.js's permission model allows a file's access and modification timestamps to be changed via `futimes()` even when the process has only read permissions. Unlike `utimes()`, `futimes()` does not apply the expected write-permission checks, which means file metadata can be modified in read-only directories. This behavior could be used to alter timestamps in ways that obscure activity, reducing the reliability of logs. This vulnerability affects users of the permission model on Node.js v20, v22, v24, and v25.
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 confidenceNode.js's permission model fails to enforce write-permission checks when using `futimes()` to modify file access and modification timestamps. While `utimes()` correctly applies permission checks, `futimes()` bypasses these controls, allowing timestamp manipulation in read-only directories even when the process has only read permissions. This can obscure forensic evidence and reduce log reliability.
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 data
Node.jsApplication
>= 20.0.0, < 20.20.0>= 22.0.0, < 22.22.0>= 24.0.0, < 24.13.0>= 25.0.0, < 25.3.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/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 Node.js versionRun `node --version` or `node -p process.version` to get the installed Node.js versionAffected if The version falls within >= 20.0.0 and < 20.20.0, >= 22.0.0 and < 22.22.0, >= 24.0.0 and < 24.13.0, or >= 25.0.0 and < 25.3.0
-
Verify if permission model is enabledCheck if the Node.js process was started with `--experimental-permission` flag by inspecting the process command line via `ps aux | grep node` or by checking if `process.permission` API is available in the Node.js runtimeAffected if The permission model is enabled and the Node.js version is in the affected range
-
Identify timestamp modification operationsReview application code and dependencies for calls to `futimes()`, `fs.futimes()`, `fs.futimesSync()`, or file descriptor-based timestamp modification functionsAffected if The application uses futimes() or related functions to modify file timestamps on files in read-only directories while running with restricted (read-only) permissions
-
Check filesystem write accessInspect the application's permission scope: if using the permission model, verify whether any write permissions are granted to directories that should be read-only via `fs.*` path permissions or the `--allow-fs-read` and `--allow-fs-write` flagsAffected if The application operates with read-only filesystem permissions but may need to modify file timestamps, making it vulnerable to the bypass
You are affected if you run a Node.js version within the affected ranges, have the permission model enabled, and your application or a library it uses relies on futimes() to modify timestamps in directories where write access is restricted.
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 · scoped20.20.022.22.024.13.0
Users of Node.js permission model should monitor for the availability of patched versions and upgrade once released. Consider implementing additional filesystem monitoring to detect unexpected timestamp changes as a compensating control.
Node.js 20.20.0, 22.22.0, 24.13.0, or 25.3.0 (whichever corresponds to your release line)
- Upgrade Node.js to version 20.20.0 or higher for the v20 release line
- Upgrade Node.js to version 22.22.0 or higher for the v22 release line
- Upgrade Node.js to version 24.13.0 or higher for the v24 release line
- Upgrade Node.js to version 25.3.0 or higher for the v25 release line
- Verify the upgrade by running `node -v` to confirm the installed version
- If using the permission model (`--permission` flag), test that the fix properly enforces write-permission checks for `futimes()` operations
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Node.js
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $2,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-55132 — 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-2025-55132 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