VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jan 2026Updated 27 Oct 2026

CVE-2025-15467: Issue summary · Parsing CMS AuthEnvelopedData or EnvelopedData message with maliciously crafted AEAD

Affects nodejsSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical · fixed in 3.0.2-0ubuntu1.21 : patch nodejs as a priority.

Data as of 27 Oct 2026, 06:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

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

Patch: Available – fixed in 3.0.2-0ubuntu1.21, 3.0.2-0ubuntu1.21+Fips1, 3.0.13-0ubuntu3.7 +3

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 27 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 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

Upgrade to a fixed release listed under Affected software.

Patches and advisories

ubuntu.com/security/notices/USN-7980-1 (opens in a new tab)

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Ubuntu 26.10edk2`pkg:deb/ubuntu/edk2?arch=source&distro=stonking`Other threats	Affected 2025.11-3ubuntu7 – 2026.05-2ubuntu3 5 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 26.10edk2-hwe`pkg:deb/ubuntu/edk2-hwe?arch=source&distro=stonking`Other threats	Affected 2025.11-3ubuntu8 – 2026.05-2ubuntu3 5 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 26.04 LTSedk2`pkg:deb/ubuntu/edk2?arch=source&distro=resolute`Other threats	Affected 2025.02-8ubuntu3 – 2025.11-3ubuntu7.3 5 affected builds	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 26.04 LTSedk2-hwe`pkg:deb/ubuntu/edk2-hwe?arch=source&distro=resolute`Other threats	Affected =2025.11-3ubuntu6 =2025.11-3ubuntu8 =2025.11-3ubuntu8.2	Fixed in–
Ubuntu 26.04 LTSopenssl`pkg:deb/ubuntu/openssl?arch=source&distro=resolute`Other threats	Affected <3.5.5-1ubuntu1	Fixed in 3.5.5-1ubuntu1
Ubuntu 25.10edk2`pkg:deb/ubuntu/edk2?arch=source&distro=questing`Other threats	Affected 2025.02-3ubuntu2 – 2025.02-8ubuntu3.2 7 affected builds	Fixed in–

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

Description

Issue summary: Parsing CMS AuthEnvelopedData or EnvelopedData message with maliciously crafted AEAD parameters can trigger a stack buffer overflow. Impact summary: A stack buffer overflow may lead to a crash, causing Denial of Service, or potentially remote code execution. When parsing CMS (Auth)EnvelopedData structures that use AEAD ciphers such as AES-GCM, the IV (Initialization Vector) encoded in the ASN.1 parameters is copied into a fixed-size stack buffer without verifying that its length fits the destination. An attacker can supply a crafted CMS message with an oversized IV, causing a stack-based out-of-bounds write before any authentication or tag verification occurs. Applications and services that parse untrusted CMS or PKCS#7 content using AEAD ciphers (e.g., S/MIME (Auth)EnvelopedData with AES-GCM) are vulnerable. Because the overflow occurs prior to authentication, no valid key material is required to trigger it. While exploitability to remote code execution depends on platform and toolchain mitigations, the stack-based write primitive represents a severe risk. The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the CMS implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are not affected by this issue. Impact summary: A stack buffer overflow may lead to a crash, causing Denial of Service, or potentially remote code execution. When parsing CMS AuthEnvelopedData structures that use AEAD ciphers such as AES-GCM, the IV (Initialization Vector) encoded in the ASN.1 parameters is copied into a fixed-size stack buffer without verifying that its length fits the destination. An attacker can supply a crafted CMS message with an oversized IV, causing a stack-based out-of-bounds write before any authentication or tag verification occurs. Applications and services that parse untrusted CMS or PKCS#7 content using AEAD ciphers (e.g., S/MIME AuthEnvelopedData with AES-GCM) are vulnerable. Because the overflow occurs prior to authentication, no valid key material is required to trigger it. While exploitability to remote code execution depends on platform and toolchain mitigations, the stack-based write primitive represents a severe risk. The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the CMS implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 1.1.1 and 1.0.2 are not affected by this issue.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…