VulnerabilityPublished 29 Jan 2026Updated 3 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-63653: Out-of-bounds Read

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 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 network traffic for unusual or malformed HTTP requests targeting Monkey HTTP servers, using intrusion detection systems (IDS) or web application firewalls (WAF) with custom rules. 2. Isolate devices running Monkey HTTP server from direct internet exposure where possible, placing them behind secure gateways or VPNs. 3. Implement rate limiting and connection throttling to reduce the impact of crafted request floods. 4. Maintain an inventory of all devices and applications using Monkey HTTP server to prioritize patching once updates become available. 5. Engage with vendors or open-source maintainers to obtain patches or mitigations promptly. 6. Employ robust logging and alerting to detect repeated crashes or service restarts indicative of exploitation attempts. 7. Consider deploying fallback or redundant services to maintain availability during potential DoS events. 8. Harden embedded devices by disabling unnecessary services and restricting access to management interfaces. 9. Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focusing on HTTP server components. 10. Educate IT and security teams about this specific vulnerability to improve incident response readiness.

Description

An out-of-bounds read in the mk_vhost_fdt_close function (mk_server/mk_vhost.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-2025-63653 is the potential for Denial of Service attacks against systems running the Monkey HTTP server. This can disrupt web services, internal applications, or embedded device management interfaces, leading to operational downtime and service unavailability. Critical infrastructure sectors such as telecommunications, manufacturing, and energy that may use embedded devices with Monkey server could experience interruptions. Although the vulnerability does not compromise data confidentiality or integrity, the loss of availability can affect business continuity and service level agreements. The ease of exploitation without authentication increases the risk of widespread scanning and attack attempts. Organizations with automated or remote management relying on Monkey HTTP server could face cascading failures if the server crashes repeatedly. The lack of current patches means organizations must rely on network-level protections and monitoring to mitigate risk. Overall, the threat could lead to degraded service performance and increased operational costs in affected European entities.

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, 08:31 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats