CVE-2025-59149VulnerabilityPublished 1 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-59149: OISF suricata · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Affects OISF suricataSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.2 Medium · fixed in 8.0.1 : update OISF suricata when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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 10% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 8.0.1

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 1 Oct 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

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should prioritize upgrading Suricata to version 8.0.1 or later, where the issue is fixed. Until the upgrade can be performed, administrators should disable any IDS/IPS rules that use the ldap.responses.attribute_type keyword combined with transforms, as these are the trigger for the buffer overflow. It is important to audit existing rule sets to identify and isolate such rules. Additionally, organizations should restrict local access to Suricata hosts to trusted personnel only, minimizing the risk of local exploitation. Implementing strict access controls and monitoring for unusual rule reload activities can help detect potential exploitation attempts. Regular backups of Suricata configurations and rulesets are recommended to enable quick recovery in case of crashes. Finally, maintaining an up-to-date inventory of Suricata deployments and integrating vulnerability management processes to track and remediate such issues promptly will enhance resilience against similar threats.

Description

Suricata is a network IDS, IPS and NSM engine developed by the OISF (Open Information Security Foundation) and the Suricata community. In version 8.0.0, rules using keyword ldap.responses.attribute_type (which is long) with transforms can lead to a stack buffer overflow during Suricata startup or during a rule reload. This issue is fixed in version 8.0.1. To workaround this issue, users can disable rules with ldap.responses.attribute_type and transforms.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, especially for those relying on Suricata for critical network security monitoring and intrusion detection/prevention. A successful exploitation could cause Suricata to crash or become unresponsive during startup or rule reload, resulting in temporary loss of network visibility and protection. This downtime could be exploited by attackers to conduct undetected malicious activities, such as data exfiltration, lateral movement, or deployment of malware. Organizations in sectors with high regulatory and compliance requirements, such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, may face increased risk due to potential gaps in network defense. Additionally, the local attack vector implies that an attacker would need access to the system running Suricata or the ability to trigger rule reloads locally, which may limit remote exploitation but still poses a risk from insider threats or compromised internal hosts. The lack of impact on confidentiality and integrity reduces the risk of direct data compromise through this vulnerability alone, but the availability impact can indirectly affect overall security posture and incident response capabilities.

CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
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…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
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)
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 1 Oct 2025, 20:11 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-121

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats