VulnerabilityPublished 7 Aug 2025Updated 11 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-8582: Google Chrome · Insufficient Validation of Untrusted Input

Affects Google ChromeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 15% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: None

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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Aug 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Google Chrome	Affected =139.0.7258.66	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize updating Google Chrome browsers to version 139.0.7258.66 or later as soon as the patch is available to eliminate the vulnerability. In the interim, organizations can implement browser hardening policies that restrict the execution of untrusted or unknown web content, such as enabling strict content security policies (CSP) and disabling or limiting JavaScript execution on untrusted sites. User awareness training should be enhanced to educate employees about the risks of URL bar spoofing and encourage verification of URLs through alternative means, such as bookmarking trusted sites or using password managers that autofill only on legitimate domains. Additionally, deploying advanced email filtering and web gateway solutions can help block access to known malicious URLs and reduce exposure. Monitoring for phishing attempts and suspicious web traffic patterns can provide early detection of exploitation attempts leveraging this vulnerability.

Description

Insufficient validation of untrusted input in Core in Google Chrome prior to 139.0.7258.66 allowed a remote attacker to spoof the contents of the Omnibox (URL bar) via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Low)

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a moderate risk primarily through social engineering and phishing campaigns. Since the Omnibox is a trusted element that users rely on to verify website authenticity, spoofing it can lead to credential theft, unauthorized access, or malware deployment if users are deceived into interacting with malicious sites. Sectors with high reliance on web-based applications, such as finance, government, and critical infrastructure, could see targeted phishing attempts leveraging this vulnerability. The impact is compounded in environments where users may not be trained to recognize subtle UI manipulations or where multi-factor authentication is not enforced, increasing the likelihood of successful compromise. However, since the vulnerability does not allow direct code execution or data exfiltration, the overall impact is limited to the potential for user deception and subsequent downstream attacks.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 15 Aug 2025, 01:10 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats