CVE-2026-25727VulnerabilityPublished 6 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-25727: time · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Affects timeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium : upgrade to 0.3.47 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 27% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.3.47

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:A/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: Active
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: High
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: Active: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a targeted user to perform specific, conscious interactions with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload, or the user’s interactions would actively subvert protection mechanisms which would lead to exploitation of the vulnerability.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Vulnerable System; 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 Vulnerable System (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).
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: High: There is a total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the Subsequent System; 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 Subsequent System (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 v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Feb 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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade time to 0.3.47.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
time-rstime	Affected >=0.3.6 <0.3.47	Fixed in 0.3.47
crates.iotime`pkg:cargo/time`Other threats	Affected <0.3.47 >=0.3.6	Fixed in 0.3.47

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should immediately upgrade the 'time' crate to version 0.3.47 or later, where the recursion depth limit has been implemented to prevent stack exhaustion. Additionally, organizations should audit their codebases and dependencies to identify any usage of the affected versions of the 'time' crate, especially in components that parse RFC 2822 date/time inputs. Input validation and sanitization should be enhanced to detect and reject malformed or suspicious date strings that could trigger the vulnerability. Implementing runtime monitoring to detect abnormal stack usage or application crashes related to date parsing can provide early warning signs of exploitation attempts. For critical systems, consider applying application-layer firewalls or input filtering to block malformed inputs before they reach vulnerable components. Finally, maintain awareness of updates from the Rust community and CVE databases for any emerging exploits or patches.

Description

time provides date and time handling in Rust. From 0.3.6 to before 0.3.47, when user-provided input is provided to any type that parses with the RFC 2822 format, a denial of service attack via stack exhaustion is possible. The attack relies on formally deprecated and rarely-used features that are part of the RFC 2822 format used in a malicious manner. Ordinary, non-malicious input will never encounter this scenario. A limit to the depth of recursion was added in v0.3.47. From this version, an error will be returned rather than exhausting the stack.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential for denial of service attacks that could disrupt services relying on the Rust 'time' crate for parsing RFC 2822 date/time inputs. This could affect email processing systems, logging services, or any application that parses such date formats. The denial of service could lead to temporary outages, degraded service availability, or resource exhaustion, impacting business continuity and potentially causing reputational damage. Since the vulnerability requires user interaction and crafted inputs, exposure is somewhat limited but still significant for internet-facing services or those processing untrusted inputs. Organizations in sectors with high reliance on Rust-based software, such as technology firms, financial services, and critical infrastructure providers, may face increased risk. The medium severity score indicates that while the vulnerability is not trivial to exploit, successful exploitation could have meaningful operational impacts.

Summary

CVE-2026-25727 is a stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability classified under CWE-121 affecting the Rust 'time' crate, versions from 0.3.6 up to but not including 0.3.47. The vulnerability arises during parsing of user-supplied input formatted according to the RFC 2822 date/time standard. Specifically, the flaw exploits deprecated and rarely-used features of RFC 2822 that cause excessive recursion leading to stack exhaustion, effectively resulting in a denial of service (DoS). The vulnerability does not affect normal, well-formed inputs, limiting its exposure to crafted malicious inputs. The attack complexity is high due to the need to craft inputs that trigger deep recursion, and it requires user interaction and low privileges, with no authentication needed. The vulnerability was addressed in version 0.3.47 by implementing a recursion depth limit that causes the parser to return an error instead of exhausting the stack. The CVSS 4.0 base score is 6.8, reflecting medium severity, with network attack vector, high attack complexity, no privileges required, and user interaction necessary. No known exploits have been reported in the wild as of the publication date. This vulnerability primarily impacts applications and services that rely on the 'time' crate for date/time parsing, particularly those that accept or process RFC 2822 formatted inputs, such as email clients, servers, or other communication tools written in Rust.

CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
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…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Feb 2026, 19:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-121

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats