CVE-2025-6705
Eclipse Open Vsx
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-6705 is a high-severity Improper Isolation or Compartmentalization (CWE-653) vulnerability in Eclipse Open Vsx. Its CVSS base score is 7.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Escape to Host (T1611); ranked at the 14th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-19382
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability in the Eclipse Open VSX Registry’s automated publishing system could have allowed unauthorized uploads of extensions. Specifically, the system’s build scripts were executed without proper isolation, potentially exposing a privileged token. This token enabled the publishing of new…
more
extension versions under any namespace, including those not controlled by an attacker. However, it did not permit deletion of existing extensions, overwriting of published versions, or access to administrative features of the registry. The issue was reported on May 4, 2025, fully resolved by June 24, and followed by a comprehensive audit. No evidence of compromise was found, though 81 extensions were proactively deactivated as a precaution. The standard publishing process remained unaffected. Recommendations have been issued to mitigate similar risks in the future.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 10 hardening rules · 7 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Security function isolation is the canonical mechanism for protecting higher-privilege compartments.
Process isolation maintains separate execution domains so one process cannot affect another’s privilege level.
Access enforcement directly stops unauthorized reads/writes to dynamic code resources by applying authorization checks at access time.
Least privilege reduces the set of subjects that can reach or modify dynamic code resources, limiting the weakness's reach.
Explicit separation of user and management functionality implements the required compartmentalization.
System partitioning creates distinct domains that enforce isolation between differently privileged components.
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.
Least-privilege policy directly enforces separation of privilege levels and access rights.
Secure SDLC practices explicitly include controls that prevent improper handling of dynamic code resources.
Network and environment segmentation implements the isolation required to prevent unauthorized cross-compartment access.
Blocking unauthorized code execution directly limits the ability to abuse dynamically-managed resources.
Runtime-environment monitoring can detect exploitation of the weakness but does not prevent it.
Vulnerability identification can surface instances of CWE-913 but does not mitigate the root weakness.
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.
Segregation of duties directly enforces separation of privilege levels and functions.
Network segregation is a classic technical control for isolating different privilege domains.
Secure system architecture principles explicitly call for isolation and least-privilege boundaries.
Security testing can detect dynamic code weaknesses but does not prevent them at design or coding time.
Separation of development, test and production environments is a direct application of compartmentalization.
Access control policies establish the boundaries that isolation must enforce.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-653
RHEL 9 (2 rules)
- V-258078 RHEL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-653
- V-272496 RHEL 9 must elevate the SELinux context when an administrator calls the sudo command. prevents CWE-653
Windows 10 (2 rules)
- V-220712 Only accounts responsible for the administration of a system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-653
- V-220726 Data Execution Prevention (DEP) must be configured to at least OptOut. prevents CWE-913
Windows 11 (2 rules)
- V-253269 Only accounts responsible for the administration of a system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-653
- V-253283 Data Execution Prevention (DEP) must be configured to at least OptOut. prevents CWE-913
Windows Server 2016 (1 rule)
- V-225007 Only administrators responsible for the member server or standalone or nondomain-joined system must have Administrator rights on the system. prevents CWE-653