VulnerabilityPublished 29 Jan 2026Updated 3 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-63650: Out-of-bounds Read

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 1.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 68% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
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: 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: 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 29 Jan 2026
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

AI-suggested

1. Monitor official Monkey HTTP server repositories and security advisories for patches addressing CVE-2025-63650 and apply them immediately upon release. 2. Until patches are available, restrict network access to Monkey HTTP servers by implementing firewall rules that limit incoming HTTP requests to trusted IP addresses or internal networks. 3. Deploy Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) with custom rules to detect and block malformed or suspicious HTTP requests that could trigger the vulnerability. 4. Conduct network traffic analysis to identify anomalous HTTP request patterns indicative of exploitation attempts and respond promptly. 5. For embedded or IoT devices using Monkey HTTP, coordinate with device vendors to obtain firmware updates or mitigations. 6. Segment networks to isolate vulnerable devices and reduce the attack surface. 7. Implement rate limiting on HTTP requests to reduce the risk of DoS conditions. 8. Maintain comprehensive logging and alerting to detect potential exploitation attempts early. 9. Educate IT and security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid response and mitigation.

Description

An out-of-bounds read in the mk_ptr_to_buf in mk_core function (mk_memory.c) of monkey commit f37e984 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via sending a crafted HTTP request to the server.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-63650 is the potential disruption of web services hosted on Monkey HTTP servers. This can lead to denial of service conditions, affecting availability and potentially causing operational downtime. Critical infrastructure, industrial control systems, and embedded devices using Monkey HTTP could be particularly vulnerable, leading to interruptions in service delivery or control processes. The lack of confidentiality or integrity impact reduces risks of data breaches but does not diminish the operational risks associated with service outages. Organizations in sectors such as manufacturing, telecommunications, and public services that use embedded web servers may face increased exposure. Additionally, denial of service attacks can be leveraged as part of larger multi-vector attacks, compounding their impact. The absence of known exploits currently provides a window for proactive mitigation, but the ease of exploitation means attackers could develop exploits rapidly once the vulnerability is public knowledge.

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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Feb 2026, 08:30 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats