CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-34212

Download of Code Without Integrity Check

Published: Sep 29, 2025 | Modified: Oct 09, 2025
CVSS 3.x
9.8
CRITICAL
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu

Vasion Print (formerly PrinterLogic) Virtual Appliance Host prior to version 22.0.843 and Application prior to version 20.0.1923 (VA/SaaS deployments) possess CI/CD weaknesses: the build pulls an unverified third-party image, downloads the VirtualBox Extension Pack over plain HTTP without signature validation, and grants the jenkins account NOPASSWD for mount/umount. Together these allow supply chain or man-in-the-middle compromise of the build pipeline, injection of malicious firmware, and remote code execution as root on the CI host. This vulnerability has been identified by the vendor as: V-2023-007 — Supply Chain Attack.

Weakness

The product downloads source code or an executable from a remote location and executes the code without sufficiently verifying the origin and integrity of the code.

Affected Software

Name Vendor Start Version End Version
Virtual_appliance_application Vasion * 20.0.1923 (excluding)
Virtual_appliance_host Vasion * 22.0.843 (excluding)

Potential Mitigations

  • Encrypt the code with a reliable encryption scheme before transmitting.

  • This will only be a partial solution, since it will not detect DNS spoofing and it will not prevent your code from being modified on the hosting site.

  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].

  • Speficially, it may be helpful to use tools or frameworks to perform integrity checking on the transmitted code.

  • Run the code in a “jail” or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software.

  • OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations.

  • This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise.

  • Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.

References