CVE-2025-54410
No source can show you its own past. This one can.
Print this page to keep the view as it stands on this date. Everything hidden behind a disclosure opens, and every receipt prints with its value.
Moby's Firewalld reload removes bridge network isolation
rank 15 = 0 + 13 + 0 + 2 + 0
rank@v1 · backlog
Someone is already using it
CISA KEV catalog · public proof-of-concept · FIRST EPSS
EPSS 0.00155 · without this subject the record ranks 15
What it costs you if it fires
NVD CVSS base score, then the CNA's own
CVSS 5.2, from NVD · without this subject the record ranks 2
It is getting worse, not staying still
FIRST EPSS series, rescorings and bad loads removed
no persisting rise in 365 days · without this subject the record ranks 15
How much of the world it touches
NVD CPE configurations
1 product in the CPE ranges · without this subject the record ranks 13
Someone else already set the date
CISA KEV remediation due date
no CISA due date · without this subject the record ranks 15
$3,310 = $4.99M incident cost x 0.42806422275080447 exposure x 0.00155 likelihood
udv@v1 · unaudited · wrong for you until you say what you run
$4.99M is the cost of a breach that happened, from IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026, global average. It is not the value of any asset of yours. That average already covers breaches of every severity, so scaling it by exposure understates a partial-impact record. That is an assumption, not a measurement. Your own asset value goes in the decision record.
Hindsight · the state
Foresight · where to check next
No weakness class or product neighbourhood is held for this record, so this index cannot name anywhere to check next. That is an absence in the record, not a finding about the software.
Sources disagree here.
Both shown, dated. We don't pick winners. disagreement-rules@v1
Running moby? Check your version
A deterministic range check against the ranges this record publishes. It tells you where a version sits in the record, not whether your deployment is exploitable. No account needed.
Watch this record
Matches your own product list against every record this index holds, and tells you when one of them moves.
Set up a watchlist (needs a Practitioner account)
Record your call
Keep your verdict, your reason and the evidence together. The record takes its date when you save it.
AcceptDeferPatch by…Not affectedMitigatedChoose your verdict, then sign in or use an email link. Your first 100 records are free. Evidence is frozen when the record is created.
Private to your organization unless you share it. Put the proof link in your ticket so a reviewer can inspect the basis for your call. See how decision records work.
Harm, if it fires from the vector and the weakness
Written for the ticket you're about to file.
CISA KEV & Federal Remediation Deadline from the record and CISA
The fix, and how long it's been waiting.
Exploit Status & Known PoCs a ladder, not a score
Current rung: Nothing observed in held sources.
- RUNG 1Nothing observed in held sources
- RUNG 2Proof-of-concept published
- RUNG 3Exploited in the wild · CISA KEV listed
- RUNG 4Ransomware campaign use known
A rung lights from a row in the index, never from an assessment. "Held sources" is the true scope of the claim: this index reads the CVE record, NVD, CISA KEV, FIRST's EPSS and public proof-of-concept repositories, and it does not observe attacks.
What it is stated by the CNA
Moby is an open source container framework developed by Docker Inc. that is distributed as Docker Engine, Mirantis Container Runtime, and various other downstream projects/products. A firewalld vulnerability affects Moby releases before 28.0.0. When firewalld reloads, Docker fails to re-create iptables rules that isolate bridge networks, allowing any container to access all ports on any other container across different bridge networks on the same host. This breaks network segmentation between containers that should be isolated, creating significant risk in multi-tenant environments. receipt
Read the rest of the CNA's description
Only containers in --internal networks remain protected. Workarounds include reloading firewalld and either restarting the docker daemon, re-creating bridge networks, or using rootless mode. Maintainers anticipate a fix for this issue in version 25.0.13.
NVD's analysis a second authority
- severity
- 5.2 CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
- weakness
- CWE-909
- affected versions
- mobyproject moby < 25.0.13
- also scored by
- [email protected] 3.3 CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
The CNA scored it 3.3 and NVD 5.2. Both are shown because both were published; we do not pick one.
check it yourself github.com firewalld.org receipt
Movement the material steps
Show all 15 observations
15 observations held. A highlighted step crossed a promotion threshold. A step marked with a scoring model moved because the instrument was replaced, not because the vulnerability changed. receipt
The full biography
The record had been public for 1 year when this index was last written.
Siblings and hubs
Records related to this one
No record cites this identifier and it carries no alias. Its defect family is below.
Its defect family
moby
Of the 2 records in this family, this is the only one whose title names removes bridge network.
Grouped by shared product and weakness, not by shared vulnerability. Each record's own state is on its own page.
Family membership: held values
This record is one of a group, and the group's page describes all of them. This page is kept and dated, and the defect family's own page is the one we offer for indexing: the whole group.
Browse the index from here
These are index-wide views, not findings about CVE-2025-54410.
What usually comes next
Everything above needs no account. What is below is work: assembling it, scoping it to your estate, watching it, and handing it to someone else.