CVE Intelligence
Skip to main content
CRITICAL

CVE-2025-32428

CVE-2025-32428 — Jupyter Remote Desktop Proxy makes TigerVNC accessible via the network and not just via a UNIX socket as intended

Jupyter Remote Desktop Proxy allows you to run a Linux Desktop on a JupyterHub. jupyter-remote-desktop-proxy was meant to rely on UNIX sockets readable only by the current user since version 3.0.0, but when used with TigerVNC, the VNC server started by jupyter-remote-desktop-proxy were still accessible via the network. This vulnerability does not affect users having TurboVNC as the vncserver executable. This issue is fixed in 3.0.1.

Published Updated Sources: cvelistV5, GitHub_M

Triage

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

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

1%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

jupyterhub

jupyter_remote_desktop_proxy

CVSS base

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

Yes

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.

Vendors (1)

jupyterhub

Products (1)

jupyter remote desktop proxy

Every base score collected

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

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactSource
9CVSS 4.0CRITICAL——cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

  • CWE-668

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 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.