Sudo is a foundational utility in Unix and Linux systems that allows users to execute commands with elevated privileges. It serves as a core mechanism for enforcing administrative boundaries, supporting system operations, package management, and configuration changes. Because of its reach and role, any misstep in how Sudo enforces permissions can expose entire systems to compromise.
The principle of least privilege is essential to secure administration. It ensures users have only the access they need, limiting opportunities for accidental damage or abuse. Sudo supports this model by enabling targeted privilege escalation. But its effectiveness depends on sound implementation and thoughtful configuration. When overlooked, even subtle misconfigurations can lead to serious exposure.
The Newly Discovered Flaws
Two recently disclosed vulnerabilities in Sudo are now prompting a renewed focus on privilege enforcement in Unix-based systems. Both were discovered by Rich Mirch, a researcher at Stratascale with a focus on escalation and misconfiguration risks. The issues affect Sudo versions 1.8.0 through 1.9.15p2 and were disclosed in coordination with the project maintainers.
The first flaw, CVE-2025-32462, is rated 2.8 on the CVSS scale. It involves how Sudo handles host specifications in the sudoers configuration file. In certain cases, incorrect rule matching may grant users access that was never intended. Although low in severity, the bug could create blind spots in access controls that depend on host-based restrictions.
The second flaw, CVE-2025-32463, is far more severe. Rated 9.3, it could allow a local attacker to escalate privileges by abusing Sudo’s --chroot option. If configured improperly, an attacker can manipulate system lookups to gain full root access. This flaw had remained undiscovered for over a decade.
CVE-2025-32462: The 12-Year-Old Bug
This vulnerability stems from Sudo’s -h option, which lets administrators specify a target host when running a command. It is commonly used in environments with centralized sudoers files or network-specific rules.
The problem arises when a user invokes the -h flag with a hostname defined in the sudoers policy. Sudo may process the command locally, even if it was meant only for use on the designated host. This misinterpretation can allow unintended privilege use, especially in distributed systems with host-based access controls.
What makes this issue especially notable is its age. The feature was added in 2013 and had gone unnoticed for over 12 years. Its long shelf-life calls attention to the risks of subtle bugs in trusted code that only surface under certain configurations.
CVE-2025-32463: Chroot Privilege Escalation
This critical flaw involves Sudo’s --chroot option, which lets users execute commands inside an isolated directory tree. If an attacker can point chroot to a directory they control, they may manipulate how Sudo resolves system lookups.
By placing a malicious version of /etc/nsswitch.conf inside the chrooted environment, the attacker can influence name resolution processes used by Sudo. If successful, this approach can lead to root-level access without requiring remote code execution.
In real-world terms, someone with limited shell access might craft a fake filesystem with the necessary files and libraries. Once chrooted into that structure, they can manipulate resolution behavior to escalate their privileges. While the setup requires certain conditions, the attack is both reliable and impactful.
The bug’s CVSS score of 9.3 reflects the ease of exploitation and the severity of its outcome, especially on systems where chroot is permitted and not closely monitored.
Implications for Enterprise and Open-Source Security
The Sudo flaws reflect how difficult it is to secure long-lived, trusted open-source software. Unlike newer applications that receive regular audits and dependency reviews, tools like Sudo evolve gradually. Legacy code, often assumed to be stable, may persist without re-examination for years.
The fact that one of these flaws existed for more than a decade demonstrates the importance of continuous scrutiny. Even low-risk features can introduce serious exposures when paired with real-world configurations. Security review must be treated as an ongoing process, not a single point-in-time check.
Enterprises that rely on open-source infrastructure should evaluate how they track and test foundational utilities, especially those involved in privilege control. Assumptions about safety should always be validated through code review, policy auditing, and real-world simulation.
What Should Admins Do?
Industry experts recommend treating these vulnerabilities as a top priority. “Permissions control, specifically maintaining positive control of privilege escalation, is critical to security operations,” said Trey Ford, Chief Information Officer at Bugcrowd. “When sudo needs to be patched, you put down your sandwich and get that prioritized ASAP.”
Ben Hutchison, Associate Principal Consultant at Black Duck, agreed. “Both the recently disclosed sudo vulnerabilities should be treated as priorities for resolution by organizations, as both enable potential elevation of user privileges and unintended execution of commands on impacted devices/across an organization’s environment.”
System administrators should update to Sudo version 1.9.17p1 or later, which includes patches for both vulnerabilities. Environments using chroot features or host-based sudoers policies should treat these updates as urgent.
Beyond patching, it is important to review sudoers files for risky configurations. Wildcards, overly permissive rules, and host entries that are no longer used can all contribute to unnecessary exposure. Chroot access should be restricted to trusted roles, and systems should log all uses of sudo with enhanced audit policies.
While these flaws are not known to be exploited in the wild, they demonstrate how trusted tools can become targets when left unchecked. Preventive action now may prevent a more serious breach later.
The Broader Context
These vulnerabilities follow a pattern seen in other privilege escalation issues across Unix and Linux tools. Recent years have revealed bugs in pkexec, polkit, and sudoedit that allowed attackers to bypass restrictions under specific conditions.
These tools often reside at the core of administration workflows, where assumptions about safety may prevent closer inspection. Delayed discovery of serious issues shows that even well-known utilities need regular testing and review.
For organizations increasingly built on open-source infrastructure, trust must be earned continuously. Routine patching, static analysis, and independent review all help reduce the risk of long-lived flaws causing operational harm.
Conclusion
The disclosure of CVE-2025-32462 and CVE-2025-32463 reminds administrators that even mature tools carry risk. When configuration complexity meets legacy behavior, the result can be a critical failure in privilege enforcement.
Sudo remains a vital part of secure Unix administration, but its safety depends on vigilance. Timely updates, careful configuration, and regular review are all part of responsible system management. In a landscape where attackers seek the smallest gaps, even trusted software must be scrutinized.
