Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-5054 is a medium-severity Race Condition (CWE-362) vulnerability in Canonical Ubuntu Linux. Its CVSS base score is 4.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 50th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-39 (Process Isolation) and SC-4 (Information in Shared System Resources) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-16511
Vulnerability Data
Race condition in Canonical apport up to and including 2.32.0 allows a local attacker to leak sensitive information via PID-reuse by leveraging namespaces. When handling a crash, the function `_check_global_pid_and_forward`, which detects if the crashing process resided in a container,…
more
was being called before `consistency_checks`, which attempts to detect if the crashing process had been replaced. Because of this, if a process crashed and was quickly replaced with a containerized one, apport could be made to forward the core dump to the container, potentially leaking sensitive information. `consistency_checks` is now being called before `_check_global_pid_and_forward`. Additionally, given that the PID-reuse race condition cannot be reliably detected from userspace alone, crashes are only forwarded to containers if the kernel provided a pidfd, or if the crashing process was unprivileged (i.e., if dump mode == 1).
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V10.4.2V10.4.5V15.1.3V15.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Maintaining separate execution domains for each process structurally eliminates unintended concurrent access to the same shared resources.
Preventing unintended information transfer through shared system resources directly addresses the improper concurrent modification that defines a race condition.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require proper synchronization primitives and concurrency testing that prevent race conditions.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing can detect race conditions, but does not prevent them at design or coding time.
Secure SDLC mandates concurrency controls and synchronization primitives that directly prevent race conditions.
Application security requirements can specify thread-safety and locking rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture principles require proper synchronization and resource isolation, addressing the root cause of CWE-362.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe concurrent access patterns and mandate atomic operations or locks.
Change management reduces introduction of concurrency bugs during updates, yet does not address the weakness itself.