VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jun 2025Updated 26 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-46158: Divide By Zero

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.2 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.2Medium

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component 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 remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
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: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Jun 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-46158, organizations using redoxOS should first verify their kernel version and identify if it predates commit 5d41cd7c. Applying the latest kernel updates or patches that address this vulnerability is the primary and most effective mitigation step once available. Until patches are released, restricting local user access to trusted personnel only can reduce the risk of exploitation. Implementing strict access controls and user privilege separation will limit the ability of unprivileged users to invoke the vulnerable syscall. Monitoring system logs for unusual or repeated invocations of `setitimer` may help detect attempted exploitation. For environments where redoxOS is used in development or testing, isolating these systems from critical infrastructure and limiting network connectivity can prevent lateral movement in case of compromise. Additionally, contributing to or tracking the redoxOS community for updates and security advisories will ensure timely awareness and response. Since no known exploits exist yet, proactive patch management and access control are the best defenses.

Description

An issue in redoxOS kernel before commit 5d41cd7c allows a local attacker to cause a denial of service via the `setitimer` syscall

Impact

For European organizations, the direct impact of CVE-2025-46158 is currently limited due to the relatively low adoption of redoxOS in commercial and critical infrastructure environments. However, organizations involved in research, development, or deployment of emerging operating systems, including academic institutions and technology startups, could face operational disruptions if their systems run vulnerable versions of redoxOS. A successful local DoS attack could lead to temporary loss of availability, interrupting development workflows or experimental deployments. In environments where redoxOS is used for security-critical applications or embedded systems, the denial of service could have more severe consequences, potentially affecting system reliability and safety. Since exploitation requires local access, the threat is more relevant in multi-user or shared environments where untrusted users might gain access. The absence of remote exploitation reduces the risk to network-facing systems. Overall, the impact is moderate but could escalate if redoxOS adoption increases or if the vulnerability is leveraged as part of a multi-stage attack chain.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 21 Jun 2025, 12:38 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-369

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats