CVE-2025-22868VulnerabilityPublished 17 Dec 2025Updated 25 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Logging for Red Hat OpenShift - 6.0.12

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 0.8% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 58% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 17 Dec 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 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
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected Red Hat Logging for Red Hat OpenShift Logging for Red Hat OpenShift 6.0 amd64 registry.redhat.io/openshift-logging/cluster-logging-operator-bundle@sha256:83771fed3881ab61f5b3d7aa11db0a86b7c87237197d191d54735b60e01e7939_amd64 Logging Subsystem for Red Hat OpenShift Logging Subsystem for Red Hat OpenShift 6.0 Logging Subsystem for Red Hat OpenShift 6 Logging for Red Hat OpenShift 6	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

It is recommended to implement pre-validation of any JWT tokens or payloads passed to the go-jose library to ensure they do not contain an excessive number of '.' characters, thereby mitigating the risk of memory exhaustion and denial of service.

Description

Red Hat OpenShift Logging 6.0.12 is a cluster-wide logging solution for OpenShift that collects and manages applications, infrastructure, and audit logs.

Impact

An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending numerous malformed JWT tokens with excessive '.' characters, causing the logging component to consume excessive memory and potentially crash or become unresponsive, resulting in a denial of service condition. There is no indication of confidentiality, integrity, or privilege escalation impact.

Summary

The vulnerability CVE-2025-22868 affects the golang.org/x/oauth2/jws package's token parsing component by using strings.Split(token, ".") to split JWT tokens. Maliciously crafted tokens containing a large number of '.' characters can cause excessive memory consumption, potentially leading to denial of service via memory exhaustion. This issue impacts Red Hat OpenShift Logging 6.0.12, a cluster-wide logging solution for OpenShift. The vendor advisory does not indicate an official fix is available yet but recommends pre-validating payloads passed to go-jose to check for excessive '.' characters as a mitigation.

CWE-1286Improper Validation of Syntactic Correctness of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be well-formed - i.e., to comply with a certain syntax - but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input complies with the syntax.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
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)
Attack patterns
SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
NoSQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-405Asymmetric Resource Consumption (Amplification) (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product does not properly control situations in which an adversary can cause the product to consume or produce excessive resources without requiring the adversary to invest equivalent work or otherwise prove authorization, i.e., the adversary's influence is "asymmetric."
Architecture and Design
An application must make resources available to a client commensurate with the client's access level.
Architecture and Design
An application must, at all times, keep track of allocated resources and meter their usage appropriately.
System Configuration
Consider disabling resource-intensive algorithms on the server side, such as Diffie-Hellman key exchange.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (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 14 Aug 2026, 22:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1286, CWE-405

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats