CVE-2025-58754VulnerabilityPublished 3 Nov 2025Updated 7 Sep 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Developer Hub 1.7.2 release

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 1.6.5 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

Severity

Medium

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

EPSS: 1.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 67% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.6.5

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 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 1.6.5.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=1.6.0 <1.6.5 Red Hat Red Hat Developer Hub Red Hat Developer Hub 1.7 amd64 registry.redhat.io/rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9@sha256:385d0b730e3f14f6878221d817b58d31da560c2edc52235b74bbbd8324b29389_amd64 Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security 4.7 registry.redhat.io/advanced-cluster-security/rhacs-central-db-rhel8@sha256:fc1cebb18febc72175ebaee8b32b3dd6bd6bda4ccef9b2fdf3c8da09b2979ffa_amd64 Red Hat Developer Hub 1.6 registry.redhat.io/rhdh/rhdh-hub-rhel9@sha256:7498105e03c741dd2ac9c39ad4ff9f22c4fee7dd40b2fd9c599996a7e67b3562_amd64 Red Hat Developer Hub (RHDH) Red Hat Developer Hub (RHDH) 1.6 Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 3.1 registry.redhat.io/openshift-service-mesh/kiali-rhel9@sha256:672ba265f8b4745d4d7cb324ae8f883e732986499bad4a72dee82f37567623f8_amd64 Red Hat Advanced Cluster Security 4.8 registry.redhat.io/advanced-cluster-security/rhacs-central-db-rhel8@sha256:51fbb1551be13e73fc2f8af5d0918eafabc9ff12660d75a1f98ebdd578f37f65_amd64 registry.redhat.io/advanced-cluster-security/rhacs-scanner-slim-rhel8@sha256:83cf26fecffc10ac1e2500caeffdb8d1dba5d0271494fa8cdbdf478633d7e54c_amd64 RHDH RHDH 1.6	Fixed in 1.6.5

AI-suggested

Red Hat Developer Hub 1.6.5 includes a fix for this vulnerability. Users should upgrade affected versions (>=1.6.0 <1.6.5) to 1.6.5 or later to remediate the issue. No other mitigation is currently available or meets Red Hat's criteria for ease of use and stability. Since this is an application-level issue, remediation requires updating the affected software.

Description

Kiali 2.11.4, for Red Hat OpenShift Service Mesh 3.1, provides observability for the service mesh by offering a visual representation of the mesh topology and metrics, helping users monitor, trace, and manage efficiently. Security Fix(es): * kiali-ossmc-rhel9: Axios DoS via lack of data size check (CVE-2025-58754) * kiali-rhel9: Axios DoS via lack of data size check (CVE-2025-58754)

Impact

The vulnerability allows an attacker to cause a denial of service by forcing the affected application to allocate excessive memory and crash. This impacts availability of the Red Hat Developer Hub application but does not compromise confidentiality or integrity. The host system remains unaffected. There are no known exploits in the wild at this time.

Summary

CVE-2025-58754 describes a denial of service vulnerability in the Axios npm package when running on Node.js. When Axios is given a URL with the data: scheme, it bypasses HTTP processing and decodes the entire payload into memory without enforcing maxContentLength or maxBodyLength limits. This allows an attacker to supply a large data URI, causing unbounded memory allocation and crashing the application process. The vulnerability affects Red Hat Developer Hub versions from 1.6.0 up to but not including 1.6.5. The impact is limited to the application bundling Axios and does not affect the underlying Red Hat system. Red Hat Developer Hub 1.6.5 release addresses this issue.

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-22Improper Limitation of a Pathname to a Restricted Directory ('Path Traversal') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #6OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product uses external input to construct a pathname that is intended to identify a file or directory that is located underneath a restricted parent directory, but the product does not properly neutralize special elements within the pathname that can cause the pathname to resolve to a location that is outside of the restricted directory.
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.
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Path Traversal (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes and URL Encoding Combined to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Web Input to File System Calls (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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, 20:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-770, CWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats