CVE-2025-55002jupyterlab jupyterlab-desktop code injection
CVE-2025-55002 is a code injection in jupyterlab jupyterlab-desktop, rated medium (5.5 on CVSS 3.1).
Why this priority: Medium severity, with no exploitation signal.
Published · Updated · NVD status: Received
What it is
Input is evaluated as code by the application, so an attacker's code runs inside it. The software runs with more privileges than it needs, so any flaw in it is worse.
How it is reached
An attacker can exploit it by someone who can already run code or sign in on the machine, with an ordinary user account, and nobody has to click anything.
What an attacker gains
A successful attack can read the data it protects. In practice, this kind of flaw lets an attacker run commands or code with the privileges of the affected service.
Is it being exploited?
There is no public report of exploitation yet.
What to do
- Upgrade jupyterlab jupyterlab-desktop to 4.6.2-1 or later.
- Limit who can run code or sign in on the hosts that run it.
Description from NVD
JupyterLab Desktop is the cross-platform desktop application for JupyterLab. Prior to 4.6.2-1, JupyterLab Desktop for macOS shipped with Electron's RunAsNode fuse enabled, allowing ELECTRON_RUN_AS_NODE to execute arbitrary Node.js code in the application process. An attacker who can already execute code as the current user can therefore run code in JupyterLab Desktop's context and inherit TCC permissions previously granted to the application, including access to protected Documents, Desktop, or Downloads folders without another macOS prompt. Exploitation requires existing local code execution and prior TCC grants; it does not provide initial or remote code execution. Windows and Linux are not affected. This vulnerability is fixed in 4.6.2-1.
What this means for your architecture.
A CVE names a product. Whether it matters depends on where that product sits in your systems: what reaches it, which trust boundary it guards and what it can reach once compromised. Veriom maps your components, their relationships and your trust boundaries from your code, cloud and delivery evidence, so you can see where a component like this sits. The radar itself does not look at your systems.
Components it touches
- Application servers and the hosts they run on. The flaw sits between untrusted input and code or command execution.
- Template engines. The flaw sits between untrusted input and code or command execution.
- Permission checks in APIs and admin surfaces. The flaw sits between one role or tenant and another.
- Multi-tenant services. The flaw sits between one role or tenant and another.
Trust boundaries in play
- Host boundary. The attacker needs a foothold on the machine first; the flaw turns a small foothold into a bigger one.
- Between untrusted input and code or command execution. An attacker who crosses it can run commands or code with the privileges of the affected service.
- Between one role or tenant and another. An attacker who crosses it can reach data or actions their role should not allow.
- Between the shipped defaults and a hardened deployment. An attacker who crosses it can use a weak default the deployment never changed.
Questions to answer about your own systems
- Where does jupyterlab jupyterlab-desktop run in your systems, and at which version?
- Which of those hosts also run code or users you do not fully trust?
- What can it reach once compromised: which data stores, secrets and services?
Sources
- CVE records and CVSS scores from the NVD CVE API. This product uses the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD.
- Exploitation status from CISA’s Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
- Exploit likelihood from FIRST’s Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS), refreshed daily.
- Explanations are written by Veriom from fixed templates over each record’s data, not by a person reviewing each CVE. Descriptions are quoted from the records as published.