CVE-2025-68381VulnerabilityPublished 18 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-68381: Elastic Packetbeat · Out-of-bounds Write

Affects Elastic PacketbeatSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
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: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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 18 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 2026-10-26.

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
Elastic Packetbeat	Affected =7.0.0 =8.0.0 =9.0.0 =9.2.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Monitor Elastic's official channels for patches addressing CVE-2025-68381 and apply them promptly once available. 2. Implement network segmentation and firewall rules to restrict UDP traffic to Packetbeat instances, allowing only trusted sources to send UDP packets to these systems. 3. Deploy intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) with signatures or anomaly detection tuned to identify malformed UDP fragments or suspicious fragment sequence numbers targeting Packetbeat. 4. Regularly audit and monitor Packetbeat logs and system resource usage to detect abnormal crashes or resource exhaustion events indicative of exploitation attempts. 5. Consider deploying Packetbeat in high-availability configurations to minimize monitoring downtime in case of crashes. 6. Limit Packetbeat exposure to untrusted networks; avoid direct exposure to public internet or untrusted adjacent networks. 7. Educate network and security teams about this vulnerability to ensure rapid incident response if exploitation is suspected.

Description

CVE-2025-68381 is a medium severity vulnerability in Elastic Packetbeat affecting versions 7.0.0 through 9.2.0. It involves an out-of-bounds write (CWE-787) due to improper bounds checking, which can be triggered remotely without authentication by sending a crafted UDP packet with an invalid fragment sequence number. Exploitation can cause a buffer overflow leading to application crashes or significant resource exhaustion, impacting availability. The vulnerability does not affect confidentiality or integrity and requires network access with no user interaction. No known exploits are currently in the wild. European organizations using Packetbeat for network monitoring could face service disruptions if targeted.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-68381 is on the availability of network monitoring infrastructure relying on Elastic Packetbeat. Packetbeat is widely used in enterprise environments for real-time network traffic analysis, security monitoring, and operational troubleshooting. A successful exploitation could cause Packetbeat instances to crash or consume excessive resources, leading to loss of visibility into network traffic and delayed detection of other security incidents. This disruption could be particularly critical for sectors relying on continuous network monitoring such as finance, telecommunications, energy, and government agencies. Additionally, denial-of-service conditions could cascade if Packetbeat is integrated into automated alerting or response systems. Since the attack requires only network adjacency and no authentication, internal network segments or VPN-connected users could potentially exploit this vulnerability. However, the lack of confidentiality or integrity impact limits the risk to data breaches or manipulation. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat of future exploitation.

CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
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…
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

discuss.elastic.co/t/packetbeat-8-19-9-9-1-9-and-9-2-3-security-update-esa-2025-30/384178 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Dec 2025, 22:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats