CVE-2025-0395VulnerabilityPublished 14 Apr 2025Updated 21 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: glibc security update

Affects Red Hat glibcSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited : upgrade the Red Hat redhat/glibc package to 9.8 or 9.6 soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

Severity

High

Rated by Threat Radar · No CVSS score from NVD or the CNA

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 29% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.8, 9.6

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Apr 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

Upgrade the Red Hat redhat/glibc package to 9.8 or 9.6.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hatredhat/glibc`pkg:rpm/redhat/glibc`Other threats	Affected <9.6 <9.8 >=9.8	Fixed in 9.6 9.8

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

AI-suggested

A security update is available from Red Hat that addresses these vulnerabilities. Users of affected Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions should apply the update as per Red Hat's advisory instructions at https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official update.

Description

Multiple security vulnerabilities have been identified and fixed in the GNU C Library (glibc), including a buffer overflow in the assert() function (CVE-2025-0395), an integer overflow in the memalign suite (CVE-2026-0861), and issues with uninitialized memory that may cause process aborts (CVE-2026-0915 and CVE-2025-15281). These affect various versions of glibc used in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 and 9 distributions as well as SUSE. A security update is available that addresses these vulnerabilities.

CWE-131Incorrect Calculation of Buffer Size (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not correctly calculate the size to be used when allocating a buffer, which could lead to a buffer overflow.
Implementation
When allocating a buffer for the purpose of transforming, converting, or encoding an input, allocate enough memory to handle the largest possible encoding. For example, in a routine that converts "&" characters to "&" for HTML entity encoding, the output buffer needs to be at least 5 times as large as the input…
Implementation
Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles…
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.
Attack patterns
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Buffer Overflow via Parameter Expansion (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 21 Oct 2026, 20:29 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-131

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats