VulnerabilityPublished 4 Jul 2025Updated 8 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-49601: Mbed mbedtls · Out-of-bounds Read

Affects Mbed mbedtlsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:29 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
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: 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: 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: 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 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 Jul 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubmbed-tls/mbedtls`pkg:github/mbed-tls/mbedtls`Other threats	Affected =3.3.0	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-49601, European organizations should: 1) Identify all systems and devices using affected MbedTLS versions (3.3.0 up to 3.6.4) especially those handling LMS signatures. 3) Implement input validation and sanitization at higher application layers to ensure that LMS public key buffers are not truncated or malformed before being passed to mbedtls_lms_import_public_key. 4) Employ runtime protections such as memory safety tools (e.g., AddressSanitizer) during development and testing to detect out-of-bounds reads. 5) Restrict network exposure of services that process LMS keys to trusted networks to reduce attack surface. 6) Monitor logs and application behavior for crashes or anomalies that may indicate exploitation attempts. 7) Consider compensating controls such as application-layer firewalls or intrusion detection systems tuned to detect malformed LMS key inputs. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on proactive identification, patch management, input validation, and runtime monitoring tailored to this specific vulnerability.

Description

In MbedTLS 3.3.0 before 3.6.4, mbedtls_lms_import_public_key does not check that the input buffer is at least 4 bytes before reading a 32-bit field, allowing a possible out-of-bounds read on truncated input. Specifically, an out-of-bounds read in mbedtls_lms_import_public_key allows context-dependent attackers to trigger a crash or limited adjacent-memory disclosure by supplying a truncated LMS (Leighton-Micali Signature) public-key buffer under four bytes. An LMS public key starts with a 4-byte type indicator. The function mbedtls_lms_import_public_key reads this type indicator before validating the size of its input.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-49601 depends largely on the extent to which MbedTLS is used in their cryptographic infrastructure, particularly in systems employing LMS signatures. MbedTLS is widely used in embedded devices, IoT products, and some network appliances. An out-of-bounds read vulnerability can lead to denial of service through application crashes, potentially disrupting critical services. Additionally, limited adjacent memory disclosure could expose sensitive cryptographic material or other confidential data, increasing the risk of further compromise. Organizations in sectors such as telecommunications, industrial control systems, and critical infrastructure that rely on embedded devices using MbedTLS are at higher risk. The vulnerability’s medium severity suggests it is not likely to cause widespread catastrophic impact but could be leveraged as part of a multi-stage attack chain. European entities with stringent data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR) must consider the confidentiality implications of memory disclosure. Furthermore, disruption of services due to crashes could affect availability commitments and operational continuity.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (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
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/Mbed-TLS/mbedtls-docs/blob/main/security-advisories/mbedtls-security-advisory-2025-06-4.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 14 Jul 2025, 21:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats