How severe is GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j?

GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j has a CVSS score of 4.5/10, rated MEDIUM. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j?

GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j affects the following packages: github.com/apptainer/apptainer (Go). Ecosystems affected: Go.

How do I fix GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j?

Update github.com/apptainer/apptainer to 1.4.5 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j in my Go dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/apptainer/apptainer, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

Is GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j?

GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.2%, placing it in the 16th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j?

GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j is classified as CWE-61 (CWE-61), CWE-706 (CWE-706). These weakness types describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j was published on December 2, 2025 and was last updated on February 4, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🐹

🐹 Go

Not in CISA KEV

MEDIUM severity

Apptainer ineffectively applies selinux and apparmor --security optionsGHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j

MEDIUMFix: apptainer/apptainer#3226

GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j is a medium-severity (CVSS 4.5) CWE-61 vulnerability in github.com/apptainer/apptainer. A fix is available for github.com/apptainer/apptainer — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2025-65105GO-2025-4176

Published

Dec 2, 2025

Updated

Feb 4, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Nov 9, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.2%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk+0.02%

Lower risk than most CVEs16th percentile — riskier than 16% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

Where this sits among everything scored

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

🐹github.com/apptainer/apptainer

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects Go packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Impact

In Apptainer versions less than 1.4.5, a container can disable two of the forms of the little used --security option, in particular the forms --security=apparmor:<profile> and --security=selinux:<label> which otherwise put restrictions on operations that containers can do. The --security option has always been mentioned in Apptainer documentation as being a feature for the root user, although these forms do also work for unprivileged users on systems where the corresponding feature is enabled. Apparmor is enabled by default on Debian-based distributions and SElinux is enabled by default on RHEL-based distributions, but on SUSE it depends on the distribution version.

In addition, a bug in the detection of selinux support in Apptainer's suid mode means that --security selinux:<label> flags may not be applied, even in the absence of an attack. In that case a warning message is emitted indicating that selinux is unavailable, but the warning may be may be overlooked, mis-interpreted, or not seen when apptainer is run from a script or other tool. Failure to apply requested restrictions should result in a fatal error rather than just a warning message.

Patches

Ineffective write of selinux process labels is addressed via an update to the containers/selinux dependency in https://github.com/apptainer/apptainer/pull/3226. That update brings in the upstream fix for https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cgrx-mc8f-2prm which was for a different but related vulnerability.

Ineffective write of apparmor process profiles is addressed in commit 4313b42.

Failure to detect apparmor / selinux support, when --security flags are provided, is made an error rather than a warning in commit 82f1790.

Workarounds

There are no known workarounds, other than to define system-wide apparmor / selinux policy for Apptainer itself. This would apply to all containers, not just those run with the --security flags, and could impact the operation of Apptainer itself.

References

Thanks to Sylabs for finding this issue, fixing it in https://github.com/sylabs/singularity/security/advisories/GHSA-wwrx-w7c9-rf87 which was easy to import into Apptainer, and disclosing it early to the Apptainer project for a coordinated release.

The related upstream runc disclosure which inspired the investigation is https://github.com/opencontainers/runc/security/advisories/GHSA-cgrx-mc8f-2prm.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐹Go	`github.com/apptainer/apptainer`	all versions	1.4.5`go get github.com/apptainer/apptainer@v1.4.5`

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations

Application

apptainerlfprojects

< 1.4.5

range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for github.com/apptainer/apptainer, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update github.com/apptainer/apptainer to 1.4.5 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

Fixing This On Your OS

If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.

Red HatModerate

This vulnerability is rated Moderate for Red Hat because Apptainer, when running containers on RHEL-based systems with SELinux enabled, allows a container to bypass the intended security restrictions provided by the --security=selinux option. This could lead to a reduction in the security posture of the container,…

Workaround published by Red Hat

Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.

Source: Red Hat security advisory for GHSA-j3rw-fx6g-q46j (CC BY 4.0)

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact In Apptainer versions less than 1.4.5, a container can disable two of the forms of the little used `--security` option, in particular the forms `--security=apparmor:<profile>` and `--security=selinux:<label>` which otherwise put restrictions on operations that containers can do. The `--security` option has always been mentioned in Apptainer documentation as being a feature for the root user, although these forms do also work for unprivileged users on systems where the corresponding feature is enabled. Apparmor is enabled by default on Debian-based distributions and SElinux is enab