How severe is GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p?

GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p affects the following packages: github.com/docker/docker (Go), github.com/docker/docker (Go), github.com/docker/docker (Go). Ecosystems affected: Go.

How do I fix GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p?

Update github.com/docker/docker to 24.0.7 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p in my Go dependencies?

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

How do I mitigate GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p 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.

How does O3 Security protect against GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p?

O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Is GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p 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.

When was GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p was published on October 30, 2023 and was last updated on September 10, 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

GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p — docker

Fix: moby/moby@48ebe35

GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p is a security vulnerability in github.com/docker/docker. A fix is available for github.com/docker/docker — see the affected versions and patch details below.

/sys/devices/virtual/powercap accessible by default to containers

Published

Oct 30, 2023

Updated

Sep 10, 2026

Affected

3 pkgs

Patched

3 / 3

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Sep 10, 2026 · OSV.dev, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Real-World Exposure

3 pkgs affected

🐹github.com/docker/docker🐹github.com/docker/docker🐹github.com/docker/docker

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

Intel's RAPL (Running Average Power Limit) feature, introduced by the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture, provides software insights into hardware energy consumption. To facilitate this, Intel introduced the powercap framework in Linux kernel 3.13, which reads values via relevant MSRs (model specific registers) and provides unprivileged userspace access via sysfs. As RAPL is an interface to access a hardware feature, it is only available when running on bare metal with the module compiled into the kernel.

By 2019, it was realized that in some cases unprivileged access to RAPL readings could be exploited as a power-based side-channel against security features including AES-NI (potentially inside a SGX enclave) and KASLR (kernel address space layout randomization). Also known as the PLATYPUS attack, Intel assigned CVE-2020-8694 and CVE-2020-8695, and AMD assigned CVE-2020-12912.

Several mitigations were applied; Intel reduced the sampling resolution via a microcode update, and the Linux kernel prevents access by non-root users since 5.10. However, this kernel-based mitigation does not apply to many container-based scenarios:

Unless using user namespaces, root inside a container has the same level of privilege as root outside the container, but with a slightly more narrow view of the system
sysfs is mounted inside containers read-only; however only read access is needed to carry out this attack on an unpatched CPU

While this is not a direct vulnerability in container runtimes, defense in depth and safe defaults are valuable and preferred, especially as this poses a risk to multi-tenant container environments running directly on affected hardware. This is provided by masking /sys/devices/virtual/powercap in the default mount configuration, and adding an additional set of rules to deny it in the default AppArmor profile.

While sysfs is not the only way to read from the RAPL subsystem, other ways of accessing it require additional capabilities such as CAP_SYS_RAWIO which is not available to containers by default, or perf paranoia level less than 1, which is a non-default kernel tunable.

References

Affected Packages

3 total 3 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🐹Go	`github.com/docker/docker`	≥ 24.0.0&&< 24.0.7	24.0.7`go get github.com/docker/docker@v24.0.7`
🐹Go	`github.com/docker/docker`	≥ 21.0.0&&< 23.0.8	23.0.8`go get github.com/docker/docker@v23.0.8`
🐹Go	`github.com/docker/docker`	all versions	20.10.27`go get github.com/docker/docker@v20.10.27`

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/docker/docker, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update github.com/docker/docker to 24.0.7 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p 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.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Intel's RAPL (Running Average Power Limit) feature, introduced by the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture, provides software insights into hardware energy consumption. To facilitate this, Intel introduced the powercap framework in Linux kernel 3.13, which reads values via relevant MSRs (model specific registers) and provides unprivileged userspace access via `sysfs`. As RAPL is an interface to access a hardware feature, it is only available when running on bare metal with the module compiled into the kernel. By 2019, it was realized that in some cases unprivileged access to RAPL readings could be

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds GHSA-jq35-85cj-fj4p across Go dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works