CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
CRITICALpublic exploit

CVE-2025-10725

CVE-2025-10725 — Openshift-ai: overly permissive clusterrole allows authenticated users to escalate privileges to cluster admin

A flaw was found in Red Hat Openshift AI Service. A low-privileged attacker with access to an authenticated account, for example as a data scientist using a standard Jupyter notebook, can escalate their privileges to a full cluster administrator. This allows for the complete compromise of the cluster's confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The attacker can steal sensitive data, disrupt all services, and take control of the underlying infrastructure, leading to a total breach of the platform and all applications hosted on it.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, redhat

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Exploit code

public exploit, none observed

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

opendatahub io

6 products listed

CVSS base

9.9

CRITICAL

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

No

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Products (6)

opendatahub operatorred hat openshift ai 2 16red hat openshift ai 2 19red hat openshift ai 2 21red hat openshift ai 2 22red hat openshift ai 2 24

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
9.9CVSS 3.1CRITICAL——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-266

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Indexed by

poc in github

References

9 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 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.