CVE-2025-55159VulnerabilityPublished 11 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-55159: tokio-rs slab · Memory Buffer Overflow

Affects tokio-rs slabSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium · fixed in 0.4.11 : update tokio-rs slab when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 6% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.4.11

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

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

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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within 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.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Aug 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 2026-10-25.

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 prioritize upgrading the slab crate to version 0.4.11 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. For projects where immediate upgrade is not feasible, developers must audit usage of the get_disjoint_mut method to ensure indices never exceed the slab's length, avoiding access to uninitialized memory. Incorporating rigorous input validation and bounds checking in application code can mitigate risks. Additionally, organizations should implement comprehensive testing, including fuzz testing and memory safety analysis, to detect potential out-of-bounds access. Monitoring Rust dependencies for updates and integrating automated dependency scanning tools into CI/CD pipelines will help promptly identify and remediate vulnerable versions. For critical systems, consider isolating or sandboxing components using the slab crate to limit impact of potential crashes. Finally, maintain awareness of tokio-rs project advisories and community discussions for any emerging exploit reports or patches.

Description

slab is a pre-allocated storage for a uniform data type. In version 0.4.10, the get_disjoint_mut method incorrectly checked if indices were within the slab's capacity instead of its length, allowing access to uninitialized memory. This could lead to undefined behavior or potential crashes. This has been fixed in slab 0.4.11. A workaround for this issue involves to avoid using get_disjoint_mut with indices that might be beyond the slab's actual length.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on their use of Rust applications that incorporate the tokio-rs slab crate, particularly version 0.4.10. Applications relying on this crate for memory management could experience stability issues such as crashes or undefined behavior if the vulnerable method is invoked with out-of-bounds indices. While the vulnerability does not directly lead to remote code execution or privilege escalation, the potential for memory corruption could be leveraged in complex attack chains or cause denial of service conditions. Organizations developing or deploying Rust-based backend services, embedded systems, or performance-critical applications using tokio-rs may face operational disruptions. Additionally, since Rust is increasingly adopted in sectors like finance, telecommunications, and critical infrastructure within Europe, the vulnerability could affect systems in these sectors if the vulnerable crate version is used. However, the local attack vector and absence of known exploits reduce immediate risk. Nonetheless, unpatched systems may be vulnerable to future exploitation attempts or stability issues.

CWE-119Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
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
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
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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Aug 2025, 01:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-119

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats