Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
CVE-2025-0689 is a high-severity buffer copy without checking size of input vulnerability in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 from Red Hat, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an unauthenticated attacker, but only if a user takes part, for example by opening a link or file. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.5% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on lists.gnu.org for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Because the attack needs a user to take part, warn users about unexpected links and files related to this product until it is patched.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Red Hat | Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform 4 | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| GNU | Grub2 | 2.12 and earlier | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- RequiredA user must take an action such as opening a file or link.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | CNA (redhat.com) |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | NVD |
Official description
When reading data from disk, the grub's UDF filesystem module utilizes the user controlled data length metadata to allocate its internal buffers. In certain scenarios, while iterating through disk sectors, it assumes the read size from the disk is always smaller than the allocated buffer size which is not guaranteed. A crafted filesystem image may lead to a heap-based buffer overflow resulting in critical data to be corrupted, resulting in the risk of arbitrary code execution by-passing secure boot protections.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
More Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities (CWE-120)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Advisories
Third-party and government advisories
- access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-0689Third Party Advisory
- bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346122Issue Tracking, Third Party Advisory
Other vulnerabilities in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.9 High severity
- 7.3 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.0 High severity
- 8.0 High severity
- 8.0 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.