CVE-2025-43458VulnerabilityPublished 4 Nov 2025Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2025-43458: Apple Safari · Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash

Affects Apple SafariSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium : upgrade to 26.1 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 26.1

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

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

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: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 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 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 Apple Safari to 26.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Apple Safari	Affected =0 <26.1	Fixed in 26.1

AI-suggested

Organizations and users should promptly apply the security updates released by Apple for Safari 26.1 and the corresponding OS versions (iOS 18.7.2, iPadOS 18.7.2, macOS Tahoe 26.1, tvOS 26.1, visionOS 26.1, watchOS 26.1). Beyond patching, network-level protections such as web content filtering and intrusion prevention systems can help block access to known malicious sites that might exploit this vulnerability. Employing endpoint security solutions that monitor browser behavior and detect abnormal crashes can provide early warning of exploitation attempts. Educating users to avoid clicking on suspicious links or visiting untrusted websites reduces the risk of triggering the vulnerability. For organizations with critical systems relying on Safari, consider implementing browser process isolation or sandboxing to limit the impact of crashes. Regularly reviewing browser crash logs and correlating with threat intelligence can help identify targeted attacks. Finally, maintaining a robust incident response plan to quickly recover from denial-of-service conditions will minimize operational disruption.

Description

This issue was addressed through improved state management. This issue is fixed in Safari 26.1, iOS 18.7.2 and iPadOS 18.7.2, iOS 26.1 and iPadOS 26.1, macOS Tahoe 26.1, tvOS 26.1, visionOS 26.1, watchOS 26.1. Processing maliciously crafted web content may lead to an unexpected process crash.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-43458 is denial of service through unexpected process crashes of Safari. For individual users, this can cause browser instability, loss of session data, and degraded user experience. For organizations, especially those relying on Safari for web-based applications, this could disrupt business operations, customer interactions, or automated workflows. In environments where Safari is embedded or used in kiosks, digital signage, or other critical systems, repeated crashes could lead to service outages or require manual intervention. Although the vulnerability does not expose sensitive data or allow code execution, the availability impact can be significant in high-dependency scenarios. Attackers could craft malicious web content to target specific users or systems, potentially as part of a broader denial-of-service campaign. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the medium severity rating and widespread use of Apple devices globally necessitate prompt patching to mitigate potential future exploitation.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-703Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not properly anticipate or handle exceptional conditions that rarely occur during normal operation of the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (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 3 Apr 2026, 02:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20, CWE-703

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats