CVE Tools
Track your stack

CVE-2026-25153

@backstage/plugin-techdocs-node vulnerable to arbitrary code execution via MkDocs hooks

No known exploitation. EPSS puts it in the 48th percentile. Fixed versions are out.

CVSS 3.17.7HighEPSS percentile48th0.6% chance in 30 daysCISA KEVNot listedNo confirmed exploitation
No public exploit knownFix3 products2 fixed builds listed below

Published Updated Sources: CVE.org, NVD, GitHub

NVD CVE.org

What to do

Find your product and version, then upgrade to the build on the right.

  • BackstageAffected: < 1.13.11Upgrade to: not statedAffected: = 1.14.0Upgrade to: not statedStated by: CVE record
  • Npm @backstage/plugin-techdocs-nodeAffected: ≥ 1.14.0, < 1.14.1Upgrade to: 1.14.1Stated by: GitHub advisory
  • Linuxfoundation BackstageAffected: < 1.13.11Upgrade to: 1.13.11Stated by: NVD

Versions as the sources state them. Full version matrix after sign-in

Is your organisation exposed?Request an assessment to establish which checks fit your systems.

What it is

From the CVE record

Backstage is an open framework for building developer portals, and @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node provides common node.js functionalities for TechDocs. In versions of @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node prior to 1.13.11 and 1.14.1, when TechDocs is configured with `runIn: local`, a malicious actor who can submit or modify a repository's `mkdocs.yml` file can execute arbitrary Python code on the TechDocs build server via MkDocs hooks configuration. @backstage/plugin-techdocs-node versions 1.13.11 and 1.14.1 contain a fix. The fix introduces an allowlist of supported MkDocs configuration keys. Unsupported configuration keys (including `hooks`) are now removed from `mkdocs.yml` before running the generator, with a warning logged to indicate which keys were removed. Users of `@techdocs/cli` should also upgrade to the latest version, which includes the fixed `@backstage/plugin-techdocs-node` dependency. Some workarounds are available. Configure TechDocs with `runIn: docker` instead of `runIn: local` to provide container isolation, though it does not fully mitigate the risk. Limit who can modify `mkdocs.yml` files in repositories that TechDocs processes; only allow trusted contributors. Implement PR review requirements for changes to `mkdocs.yml` files to detect malicious `hooks` configurations before they are merged. Use MkDocs < 1.4.0 (e.g., 1.3.1) which does not support hooks. Note: This may limit access to newer MkDocs features. Building documentation in CI/CD pipelines using `@techdocs/cli` does not mitigate this vulnerability, as the CLI uses the same vulnerable `@backstage/plugin-techdocs-node` package.

In plain language

No plain-language summary for this CVE yet.

Exploitation

Where each signal puts this CVE on the scale from published to confirmed exploited.

EPSS48th
CISA KEV

Not in the catalog. CISA has not confirmed exploitation.

Public exploits

No public exploit or proof of concept found in the sources we track.

EPSS

0.6% chance of exploitation activity in the next 30 days, which ranks it in the 48th percentile of scored CVEs.

Exploit Prediction Scoring System, FIRST.org. A probability, not a confirmation.

Lifecycle

7 events over 166 days, from the signal feeds we watch.

  1. Patch availablerecord updated
  2. Patch availablerecord updated
  3. Publishedweakness classified, att&ck mapped

Affected products

Technical detail

CVSS 3.1 vector

Open in the CVSS calculator

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:L/A:L

Scored 7.7 by NVD.

How it is reached

  • Attack Vector NetworkExploitable remotely over the network without any special conditions
  • Attack Complexity HighRequires specific conditions like a race condition or non-default configuration
  • Privileges Required LowRequires basic user-level privileges
  • User Interaction NoneNo user interaction needed — fully automated exploitation

Scope

  • Scope ChangedThe exploit can affect other components (e.g. sandbox escape, host compromise from VM)

Impact if exploited

  • Confidentiality HighTotal information disclosure — all data in the component is compromised
  • Integrity LowData modification is possible but limited in scope or consequence
  • Availability LowReduced performance or intermittent disruption of service

Weaknesses

ATT&CK techniques

Mapped from the weaknesses above (CWE to ATT&CK), not observed in attacks.

Sources

References in the record

And 5 more references. See all after sign-in

Watch the software you run.

My Stack ranks new CVEs for your products by real-world exploitation, so the next serious one reaches you without reading every advisory.

We'll flag the next CVE, public exploit or patch for Backstage, not every advisory.