Skip to content
Noroxi
NVD / CVE Program· CNA Docker

CVE-2025-10657: Docker Desktop with ECI Fails to Enforce Socket Command Restrictions

Noroxi assessment

Priority: Monitor (action score 34/100)

  • The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
  • Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.14% (FIRST EPSS).
  • Someone with local access to the system can trigger it. Administrator privileges are required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
  • According to the record, no fixed version is available yet.

Low priority for now. Update when a fix is released; follow the vendor's advisory.

Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it

Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS

In a hardened Docker environment, with Enhanced Container Isolation ( ECI https://docs.docker.com/enterprise/security/hardened-desktop/enhanced-container-isolation/ ) enabled, an administrator can utilize the command restrictions feature https://docs.docker.com/enterprise/security/hardened-desktop/enhanced-container-isolation/config/#command-restrictions  to restrict commands that a container with a Docker socket mount may issue on that socket. Due to a software bug, the configuration to restrict commands was ignored when passed to ECI, allowing any command to be executed on the socket. This grants excessive privileges by permitting unrestricted access to powerful Docker commands. The vulnerability affects only Docker Desktop 4.46.0 users that have ECI enabled and are using the Docker socket command restrictions feature. In addition, since ECI restricts mounting the Docker socket into containers by default, it only affects containers which are explicitly allowed by the administrator to mount the Docker socket.

HighCVSS 8.7 · v4.0—No exploit No fix recorded
Published
Sep 26, 2025
Updated
Oct 9, 2026
EPSS
0.1% · 3th percentile

Report tools

JSON

Action score

34

Monitor

Low priority for now.

CVSS
34 / 40 · 8.7 / 10
CISA KEV
0 / 30 · Not listed
EPSS
0 / 30 · 0.1%

CISA SSVC decision

Exploitation
none
Automatable
no
Technical impact
total

Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.

CNA vs NVD score

NVD
—
CNA · Docker
8.7
NVD has not scored this yet; the score shown is the CNA’s.

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H

The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.

Get told when this record changes

  • Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
  • No public exploit code on record
  • No fixed version yet

If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.

Follow CVE-2025-10657

When you'll hear from us

  • when it enters CISA KEV
  • when exploit code appears or is weaponized
  • when the record is updated (including a fixed version)
  • when EPSS rises 20 points in a week

One daily email digest (06:00 UTC); connect a webhook for KEV listings and weaponized exploits instantly.

Your free account also gets you

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

  • Stack alerts: add the products and versions you run, get the new CVEs that affect them
  • Uptime monitoring: 1 site, instant email when it goes down
  • Add your domain: subdomains and takeover risk scanned every week (1 domain)
  • 10 scans an hour on the security tools (3 a day without an account), an API key and MCP
  • All your scans in one panel: findings, what changed in the last scan, a report per domain or per client (PDF, share link)
All free tools

Sign up with email · Have an account? Sign in

Free account, no card. Unfollow any time.

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

Is your version affected? Check it

Noroxi analysis

What does it mean in your environment?

The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.

We use this product, ask for help

Affected systems

Is your version affected?

Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.

—

Using docker desktop? Add it to your stack and be the first to know about CVEs like this one. (Docker)

Watch new CVEs for docker desktop

When you'll hear from us

  • when a new CVE affecting this product is published
  • when a record in your stack enters KEV or gets exploit code

One daily email digest (06:00 UTC); connect a webhook for KEV listings and weaponized exploits instantly.

Your free account also gets you

Running WordPress? Scan your site free with WP Lens

  • Stack alerts: add the products and versions you run, get the new CVEs that affect them
  • Uptime monitoring: 1 site, instant email when it goes down
  • Add your domain: subdomains and takeover risk scanned every week (1 domain)
  • 10 scans an hour on the security tools (3 a day without an account), an API key and MCP
  • All your scans in one panel: findings, what changed in the last scan, a report per domain or per client (PDF, share link)
All free tools

Sign up with email · Have an account? Sign in

Free account, no card. Unfollow any time.

Versions reported by the vendor

Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (Docker). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.

  • Docker Docker Desktop

    • 4.46.0affected

Other highest-scoring records for the same primary product.

  • CVE-2023-0626Docker Desktop before 4.12.0 is vulnerable to RCE via query parameters in message-box route
    39Monitor
  • CVE-2023-0625Docker Desktop before 4.12.0 is vulnerable to RCE via a crafted extension description or changelog
    39Monitor
  • CVE-2025-9074Docker Desktop allows unauthenticated access to Docker Engine API from containers
    38Monitor

Published before and after this one in the same product

  • ← EarlierCVE-2025-4095Apr 29, 2025 · Registry Access Management (RAM) policies not applied when sign-in enforcement is configured via a configuration profile
    17Monitor
  • ← EarlierCVE-2025-6587Jul 3, 2025 · Exposure of system environment variables in Docker Desktop diagnostic logs
    20Monitor
  • Later →CVE-2025-9164Oct 27, 2025 · Multiple DLL Search Order Hijacking Vulnerabilities in Docker Desktop Installer for Windows
    35Monitor

Remediation

Which version to upgrade to

Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.

No fix version is recorded for this entry. Check the references for vendor advisories.

Exploit status

No known public exploit

No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.

Research context

For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.

Timeline

From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.

No dated events beyond publication.

No history yet (it accumulates with the daily EPSS job).

Patch and commit links

Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.

No commit or PR link among the references.

Finders, reporters and analysts named in the CNA record. Click a name for that researcher’s other records.

No credits in the CNA record.

Variant candidates

Same product, same weakness class, within 18 months. If the patch missed the root cause, the sibling bug is here.

No nightly-computed relations.

Chain candidates

An authentication bypass and a privilege-requiring bug in the same product, published close together: combined they may become an unauthenticated path.

—

Bug bounty scope

The product’s vendor appears in a public program. Matched by name; verify the scope text in the program.

Technical details

Attack conditions

  • Someone with local access to the system can trigger it.
  • Administrator privileges are required.
  • No user action is required.
  • No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.

If successful

Confidentiality
Integrity
Availability
Attack vector
Local
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
High
User interaction
None
Scope
X

CVSS vector

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/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

nvd-secondary

Root cause

To simplify setup, a service account is granted broad, cluster-wide permissions. The principle of least privilege is skipped during installation.

A representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.

Vulnerable

yaml
kind: ClusterRolerules:  - apiGroups: ["*"]    resources: ["*"]    verbs: ["*"]

Fixed

yaml
kind: Rolemetadata:  namespace: lodos-systemrules:  - apiGroups: ["apps"]    resources: ["deployments"]    verbs: ["get", "list", "update"]

Attack context

MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.

Change log

No changes recorded on tracked fields yet. Score, KEV, exploit maturity and fix status changes appear here.

References

Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.

All records