VulnerabilityPublished 10 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-6211: run-llama/llama_index · Expected Behavior Violation

Affects run-llama/llama_indexSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium · fixed in 0.3.1 : update run-llama/llama_index when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:16 UTC

CVSS 3.0 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.3.1

CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 10 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 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
run-llama run-llama/llama_index	Affected <=0.12.28	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations using run-llama/llama_index should immediately upgrade to version 0.3.1 or later, where the vulnerability is fixed. If upgrading is not immediately feasible, organizations should consider implementing additional validation layers to detect and handle hash collisions, such as appending structural metadata to the hash input or switching to a collision-resistant hashing algorithm like SHA-256 for ID generation. It is also advisable to audit existing document chunk data for signs of overwriting or data loss and to maintain robust backups of original documents. Organizations should monitor AI output quality closely for hallucinations or inaccuracies that may indicate underlying data integrity issues. Finally, integrating integrity checks and version control mechanisms for document chunks can help detect and prevent silent data corruption.

Description

A vulnerability in the DocugamiReader class of the run-llama/llama_index repository, up to version 0.12.28, involves the use of MD5 hashing to generate IDs for document chunks. This approach leads to hash collisions when structurally distinct chunks contain identical text, resulting in one chunk overwriting another. This can cause loss of semantically or legally important document content, breakage of parent-child chunk hierarchies, and inaccurate or hallucinated responses in AI outputs. The issue is resolved in version 0.3.1.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those relying on AI-driven document processing tools like run-llama/llama_index, this vulnerability can lead to significant operational and legal risks. Loss or corruption of document chunks can result in incomplete or misleading data being fed into AI models, causing inaccurate outputs that may affect decision-making, compliance reporting, or legal document handling. Sectors such as legal, financial services, healthcare, and government agencies that process sensitive or regulated documents are particularly at risk. The integrity breach could undermine trust in automated document analysis, potentially leading to regulatory non-compliance or erroneous business outcomes. Additionally, the disruption of document hierarchies may complicate audits or forensic investigations. While the vulnerability does not directly expose confidential data, the loss of data integrity and availability can have cascading effects on business processes and AI reliability.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Jul 2025, 13:31 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-440

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats