VulnerabilityPublished 6 Mar 2026Updated 19 Mar 2026

CVE-2025-69650: GNU Binutils thru · Double Free

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% 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 6 Mar 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 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-69650, organizations should first verify the version of GNU Binutils in use and avoid using pre-release or untagged versions of readelf that may contain this vulnerability. Until an official patch is released, consider the following specific measures: 1) Implement input validation or filtering to prevent processing of untrusted or malformed ELF binaries with readelf, especially in automated pipelines. 2) Employ sandboxing or containerization to isolate readelf executions, limiting the impact of potential crashes on the host system. 3) Monitor and restrict access to systems that process ELF files to trusted users and sources to reduce exposure to crafted malicious files. 4) Use alternative ELF inspection tools that are not affected by this vulnerability if immediate mitigation is required. 5) Stay updated with GNU Binutils security advisories and apply patches promptly once available. 6) Incorporate error handling and process monitoring to automatically restart or recover from readelf crashes to maintain workflow continuity. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling input sources, isolating vulnerable processes, and maintaining operational resilience.

Description

GNU Binutils thru 2.46 readelf contains a double free vulnerability when processing a crafted ELF binary with malformed relocation data. During GOT relocation handling, dump_relocations may return early without initializing the all_relocations array. As a result, process_got_section_contents() may pass an uninitialized r_symbol pointer to free(), leading to a double free and terminating the program with SIGABRT. No evidence of exploitable memory corruption or code execution was observed; the impact is limited to denial of service. NOTE: this is disputed by third parties because the observed behavior occurred only in pre-release code and did not affect any tagged version.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-69650 is denial of service against the readelf utility within GNU Binutils. Organizations that utilize readelf for ELF binary inspection, debugging, or automated build and analysis pipelines may experience process crashes when processing crafted or malformed ELF files. This could disrupt development workflows, continuous integration systems, or security analysis tools that rely on readelf, potentially delaying operations or causing system instability. Since readelf is widely used in Unix-like environments for ELF file introspection, the vulnerability could affect a broad range of software development and security teams. However, the lack of evidence for memory corruption or code execution limits the risk to availability rather than confidentiality or integrity. No known exploits in the wild reduce immediate risk, but the vulnerability could be leveraged by attackers to cause targeted denial of service in environments where untrusted ELF files are processed automatically. The disputed nature of the vulnerability's presence in stable releases may limit exposure, but organizations should remain cautious. Overall, the impact is significant for availability but does not extend to data breach or system compromise.

CWE-415Double Free (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product calls free() twice on the same memory address.
Architecture and Design
Choose a language that provides automatic memory management.
Implementation
Ensure that each allocation is freed only once. After freeing a chunk, set the pointer to NULL to ensure the pointer cannot be freed again. In complicated error conditions, be sure that clean-up routines respect the state of allocation properly.
Implementation
Use a static analysis tool to find double free instances.
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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Mar 2026, 22:38 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-415

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats