CVE-2025-64726 — External Control of System or Configuration Setting and Uncontrolled Search Path Element in sfw
Socket Firewall is an HTTP/HTTPS proxy server that intercepts package manager requests and enforces security policies by blocking dangerous packages. Socket Firewall binary versions (separate from installers) prior to 0.15.5 are vulnerable to arbitrary code execution when run in untrusted project directories. The vulnerability allows an attacker to execute arbitrary code by placing a malicious `.sfw.config` file in a project directory. When a developer runs Socket Firewall commands (e.g., `sfw npm install`) in that directory, the tool loads the `.sfw.config` file and populates environment variables directly into the Node.js process. An attacker can exploit this by setting `NODE_OPTIONS` with a `--require` directive to execute malicious JavaScript code before Socket Firewall's security controls are initialized, effectively bypassing the tool's malicious package detection. The attack vector is indirect and requires a developer to install dependencies for an untrusted project and execute a command within the context of the untrusted project. The vulnerability has been patched in Socket Firewall version 0.15.5. Users should upgrade to version 0.15.5 or later. The fix isolates configuration file values from subprocess environments. Look at `sfw --version` for version information. If users rely on the recommended installation mechanism (e.g. global installation via `npm install -g sfw`) then no workaround is necessary. This wrapper package automatically ensures that users are running the latest version of Socket Firewall. Users who have manually installed the binary and cannot immediately upgrade should avoid running Socket Firewall in untrusted project directories. Before running Socket Firewall in any new project, inspect `.sfw.config` and `.env.local` files for suspicious `NODE_OPTIONS` or other environment variable definitions that reference local files.
Who exploits it and how urgent it is
A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.
How the score was calculated
- EPSS 0.2% (30-day exploitation probability)+1
- Technical severity (high)+6
- CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5
The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.
CISA SSVC assessment CISA
Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.
Remediation
Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.
No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.
- Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (SocketDev Firewall-release).
- No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
- Exploitation requires user interaction: tighten email/web filtering and warn affected users.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SocketDev | Firewall-release | version < 0.15.5 | Vulnerable | CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.3 | CVSS 4.0 | High | — | — | security-advisories@github.com via NIST National Vulnerability Database |
| 7.3 | CVSS 4.0 | High | — | — | GitHub_M via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP |
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:P/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/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:X (score shown at the top: security-advisories@github.com) Weakness MITRE
Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.
EPSS over time FIRST
Oct 13, 2026 → Oct 14, 2026 · 2 reading(s) · max 0.16%
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.
- Local/physical vector: focus on endpoint telemetry (EDR) from affected hosts.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first.
- 2026
- Affected products added · socketdev/firewall-release
- SSVC assessment updated
- Record published
- CVSS changed · 7.3
- Source status changed · → Deferred
- Record created in this database
- 2025
- CVE published
Source activity
Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.
- 1× Official description updated · Oct 13, 2026 – Oct 13, 2026
References
2 on the record
Elsewhere on this site
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record
Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2025-64726 is "External Control of System or Configuration Setting and Uncontrolled Search Path Element in sfw", rated High. It affects Firewall-release (SocketDev); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 7.3 describes technical severity. EPSS 0.16% estimates the probability of exploitation in 30 days; neither replaces your asset context. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.
Comments
Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.
No comments yet.
Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.