VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-12440: Google Chrome · Inappropriate Implementation

Affects Google ChromeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 142.0.7444.59 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 11% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 142.0.7444.59

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Nov 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade Google Chrome to 142.0.7444.59.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Google Chrome	Affected =142.0.7444.59 <142.0.7444.59	Fixed in 142.0.7444.59

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-12440, organizations should prioritize updating all instances of Google Chrome to version 142.0.7444.59 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. Automated patch management tools should be employed to ensure timely deployment across all endpoints. User education is critical: employees should be trained to recognize suspicious websites and avoid interacting with unexpected UI prompts or gestures on unfamiliar pages. Implementing browser security policies that restrict or monitor autofill usage can reduce exposure. Network-level protections such as web filtering and threat intelligence integration can help block access to known malicious sites. Additionally, organizations should audit and limit the amount of sensitive data stored in browser autofill features, encouraging the use of dedicated password managers with stronger security controls. Monitoring for unusual browser behavior or data exfiltration attempts can provide early warning of exploitation attempts. Finally, maintaining an incident response plan that includes browser-related threats will improve readiness.

Description

Inappropriate implementation in Autofill in Google Chrome prior to 142.0.7444.59 allowed a remote attacker who convinced a user to engage in specific UI gestures to obtain potentially sensitive information from process memory via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-12440 is the potential leakage of sensitive autofill data, which may include personal information, payment details, or credentials stored in the browser. This could lead to privacy violations, identity theft, or targeted phishing attacks if attackers harvest such data. While the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach can undermine trust in corporate IT environments, especially where Chrome is widely used. Organizations with employees who frequently use Chrome for web-based applications or handle sensitive data are at higher risk. The need for user interaction reduces the likelihood of mass exploitation but does not eliminate targeted attacks, particularly in sectors like finance, healthcare, or government where sensitive data is common. Additionally, the lack of known exploits in the wild suggests a window of opportunity to patch before widespread abuse occurs. However, the pervasiveness of Chrome in Europe means that many organizations could be exposed if updates are not applied promptly.

CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
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.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
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…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
MIME Conversion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Nov 2025, 20:27 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats