VulnerabilityPublished 8 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-59391: libcoap · Out-of-bounds Read

Affects libcoapSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 4.3.5 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.3.5

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
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: 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: 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 8 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

Upgrade obgm/libcoap to 4.3.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubobgm/libcoap`pkg:github/obgm/libcoap`Other threats	Affected <4.3.5	Fixed in 4.3.5

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

AI-suggested

1. 2. Implement strict validation and sanitization of configuration inputs to prevent malformed or malicious data from reaching the OSCORE configuration parser. 3. Restrict access to configuration interfaces to trusted administrators and authenticated systems only, minimizing the attack surface. 4. Monitor configuration changes and logs for unusual or unauthorized modifications that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5. Employ network segmentation and access controls to limit exposure of devices running libcoap to untrusted networks or users. 6. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on IoT and constrained device environments to detect similar vulnerabilities. 7. Educate operational teams about the risks associated with configuration management and the importance of timely patching in IoT ecosystems.

Description

A memory disclosure vulnerability exists in libcoap's OSCORE configuration parser in libcoap before release-4.3.5-patches. An out-of-bounds read may occur when parsing certain configuration values, allowing an attacker to infer or read memory beyond string boundaries in the .rodata section. This could potentially lead to information disclosure or denial of service.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-59391 can be significant, particularly for those deploying IoT devices, smart city infrastructure, industrial control systems, or other constrained environments using CoAP with OSCORE security. The memory disclosure can lead to leakage of sensitive information such as cryptographic keys or configuration secrets, undermining the confidentiality of communications and potentially enabling further attacks. The denial of service aspect can disrupt critical services relying on CoAP messaging, affecting availability. Organizations involved in sectors like energy, transportation, healthcare, and manufacturing that utilize IoT devices with libcoap are particularly vulnerable. The risk is heightened in environments where attackers can supply or manipulate configuration data remotely or locally. This vulnerability could also facilitate lateral movement or privilege escalation if sensitive memory contents are disclosed. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for mitigation, but the potential for future exploitation necessitates proactive measures.

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Dec 2025, 17:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats