CVE-2025-59830VulnerabilityPublished 11 Nov 2025Updated 21 Sep 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: pcs security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 10.1 or 8.7 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 47% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 10.1, 8.7

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Nov 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 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 Red Hat to 10.1 or 8.7.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=10.0 <10.1 >=8.6 <8.7 Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability (v. 10) noarch cockpit-ha-cluster-0:0.12.0-3.el10_0.3.noarch Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability E4S (v.8.8) Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability TUS (v.8.8) src Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability E4S (v.8.6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability TUS (v.8.6) Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability AUS (v.8.4) Red Hat Enterprise Linux HighAvailability EUS EXTENSION (v.8.4) Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability (v. 9) Red Hat Enterprise Linux Resilient Storage (v. 9) cockpit-ha-cluster-0:0.12.1-1.el10_1.1.noarch	Fixed in 10.1 8.7

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released security updates that fix these vulnerabilities. Users should apply the provided patches and updates as detailed in the Red Hat advisories RHSA-2025:19513 and RHSA-2025:19734. The advisories include updated package versions for affected Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability releases. Applying these official fixes will mitigate the described security issues.

Description

The pcs packages provide a command-line configuration system for the Pacemaker and Corosync utilities. Security Fix(es): * rubygem-rack: Rack QueryParser has an unsafe default allowing params_limit bypass via semicolon-separated parameters (CVE-2025-59830) * rack: Rack's unbounded multipart preamble buffering enables DoS (memory exhaustion) (CVE-2025-61770) * rack: Rack's multipart parser buffers large non?file fields entirely in memory, enabling DoS (memory exhaustion) (CVE-2025-61771) * rack: Rack memory exhaustion denial of service (CVE-2025-61772) * rubygem-rack: Unbounded read in `Rack::Request` form parsing can lead to memory exhaustion (CVE-2025-61919) For more details about the security issue(s), including the impact, a CVSS score, acknowledgments, and other related information, refer to the CVE page(s) listed in the References section.

Impact

The vulnerabilities can lead to denial of service conditions by exhausting system memory due to unbounded buffering and parsing in Rack and rubygem-rack components. Additionally, an unsafe default in QueryParser allows bypassing parameter limits, potentially impacting application behavior. These issues affect the stability and availability of systems running the affected pcs packages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux High Availability environments.

CWE-770Allocation of Resources Without Limits or Throttling (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #25
The product allocates a reusable resource or group of resources on behalf of an actor without imposing any intended restrictions on the size or number of resources that can be allocated.
Requirements
Clearly specify the minimum and maximum expectations for capabilities, and dictate which behaviors are acceptable when resource allocation reaches limits.
Architecture and Design
Limit the amount of resources that are accessible to unprivileged users. Set per-user limits for resources. Allow the system administrator to define these limits. Be careful to avoid CWE-410.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V11.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Exponential Data Expansion (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data Parameter Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-1284Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify a quantity (such as size or length), but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the quantity has the required properties.
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)
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 13 Aug 2026, 20:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-770, CWE-400, CWE-1284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats