VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-55307: Foxit PDF · Out-of-bounds Read

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low · fixed in 2025.2 : update affected systems when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2025.2, 13.2

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

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

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: 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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 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 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

AI-suggested

1. 2. Temporarily disable or restrict JavaScript execution within Foxit PDF Reader and Editor settings to reduce the attack surface, especially if JavaScript functionality is not essential for business processes. 3. Implement advanced email filtering and sandboxing solutions to detect and block malicious PDF attachments before they reach end users. 4. Educate employees on the risks of opening unsolicited or unexpected PDF attachments and encourage verification of document sources. 5. Employ endpoint protection solutions capable of detecting anomalous behavior related to PDF processing or memory corruption attempts. 6. Consider deploying application whitelisting and restricting the use of vulnerable PDF readers where possible, favoring updated or alternative PDF software with robust security. 7. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing to identify and remediate potential exploitation paths related to PDF handling.

Description

An issue was discovered in Foxit PDF and Editor for Windows before 13.2 and 2025 before 2025.2. Opening a malicious PDF containing a crafted JavaScript call to search.query() with a crafted cDIPath parameter (e.g., "/") may cause an out-of-bounds read in internal path-parsing logic, potentially leading to information disclosure or memory corruption.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-55307 can be substantial. Many enterprises and public sector entities rely heavily on PDF documents for communication, contracts, and data exchange. An attacker exploiting this vulnerability could gain access to sensitive information stored in memory or cause application instability, potentially disrupting business operations. Information disclosure could lead to leakage of confidential data, intellectual property, or personal data protected under GDPR, resulting in regulatory penalties and reputational damage. Memory corruption could be a stepping stone for further exploitation, including remote code execution, which would allow attackers to gain control over affected systems. Sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and legal services, which handle sensitive documents frequently, are particularly at risk. Additionally, the ease of exploitation by simply opening a malicious PDF increases the likelihood of successful attacks via phishing campaigns or malicious document distribution. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive defense, but organizations must act swiftly to mitigate potential risks.

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

foxit.com/support/security-bulletins.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Dec 2025, 15:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats