CVE-2025-14958VulnerabilityPublished 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-14958: floooh sokol · Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Affects floooh sokolSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

4.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Dec 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 2026-10-26.

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 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

AI-suggested

European organizations should take the following specific steps: 1) Identify all software and systems using the floooh sokol library, particularly those embedding sokol_gfx.h. 2) Verify the version or commit hash of the library in use to determine if it is vulnerable (prior to or at commit 33e2271c431bf21de001e972f72da17a984da932). 3) Apply the patch corresponding to commit 33e2271c431bf21de001e972f72da17a984da932 immediately to remediate the buffer overflow. 4) Implement strict local access controls and monitoring to limit the ability of untrusted users to execute code locally. 5) Employ runtime protections such as heap canaries, address space layout randomization (ASLR), and control flow integrity (CFI) in applications using sokol to reduce exploitation likelihood. 6) Conduct code audits and fuzz testing on custom integrations of the library to detect similar vulnerabilities. 7) Maintain an up-to-date inventory of dependencies and integrate continuous vulnerability scanning in the development lifecycle to catch rolling release updates. 8) Educate developers and system administrators about the risks of local buffer overflows and the importance of patching rolling release software promptly.

Description

A security flaw has been discovered in floooh sokol up to 33e2271c431bf21de001e972f72da17a984da932. This vulnerability affects the function _sg_pipeline_common_init in the library sokol_gfx.h. Performing manipulation results in heap-based buffer overflow. The attack needs to be approached locally. The exploit has been released to the public and may be exploited. This product uses a rolling release model to deliver continuous updates. As a result, specific version information for affected or updated releases is not available. The patch is named 33e2271c431bf21de001e972f72da17a984da932. It is suggested to install a patch to address this issue.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability lies in potential local privilege escalation, arbitrary code execution, or denial of service within applications embedding the floooh sokol graphics library. Since the attack requires local access, the threat is more significant in environments where multiple users share systems or where attackers can gain initial footholds via other means. Industries relying on embedded systems, graphical applications, or custom software using sokol may face risks of system instability or compromise. Confidentiality could be impacted if attackers leverage the overflow to execute code and access sensitive data. Integrity and availability are also at risk due to possible application crashes or malicious code execution. The medium severity rating suggests a moderate but non-trivial risk, especially in critical infrastructure or industrial control systems using this library. The rolling release model may delay patch deployment if organizations do not have robust update mechanisms. Overall, the threat could disrupt operations, lead to data breaches, or facilitate further attacks if exploited.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Dec 2025, 17:56 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats