CVE-2025-47277VulnerabilityPublished 15 Sep 2025Updated 6 Sep 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI 1.5 (Intel Gaudi)

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-48379

Not known to be exploited.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

Severity

High

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

EPSS: 0.9% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 61% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 15 Sep 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=1.5 <=1.5 =1.5 Red Hat Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI 1.5.1 amd64 registry.redhat.io/rhelai1/bootc-intel-rhel9@sha256:47c7b3931eb3a829bb4916cf9ecb7d03d83e762801399f8ed3825de0aa213b43_amd64 Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI 1.5	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Currently, Red Hat has not provided an official fix or mitigation that meets their criteria for this vulnerability. Users should monitor Red Hat advisories for updates. No workaround or mitigation is recommended by Red Hat at this time. Customers with a Technical Account Manager (TAM) can consult directly for guidance. Applying generic mitigations is not advised unless specifically recommended by Red Hat.

Description

Red Hat® Enterprise Linux® AI is a foundation model platform to seamlessly develop, test, and run Granite family large language models (LLMs) for enterprise applications.

Impact

The vulnerability allows a local attacker to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service on systems running Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI 1.5 by exploiting a heap buffer overflow in the Pillow library. This can compromise the integrity and availability of the affected system under the privileges of the user running the vulnerable application. There is no indication of remote exploitation or confidentiality impact. No known exploits are reported in the wild at this time.

Summary

CVE-2025-48379 is a heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability in the Pillow image processing library used in Red Hat Enterprise Linux AI 1.5 (Intel Gaudi). The flaw occurs when processing a malicious DDS image larger than 64k, due to insufficient size validation when writing image data into an internal buffer. Successful exploitation can lead to local arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the user running the application or cause a denial of service by crashing the application. Red Hat rates this vulnerability as Important and has not released an official fix or effective mitigation yet. The advisory also references CVE-2025-47277 but provides no details or fixes for it. The vulnerability is associated with CWEs 122 (Heap-based Buffer Overflow) and 502 (Deserialization of Untrusted Data).

CWE-502Deserialization of Untrusted Data (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #15OWASP Top 10 A08:2025: Software or Data Integrity Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product deserializes untrusted data without sufficiently ensuring that the resulting data will be valid.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
If available, use the signing/sealing features of the programming language to assure that deserialized data has not been tainted. For example, a hash-based message authentication code (HMAC) could be used to ensure that data has not been modified.
Implementation
When deserializing data, populate a new object rather than just deserializing. The result is that the data flows through safe input validation and that the functions are safe.
Implementation
Explicitly define a final object() to prevent deserialization.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
XML External Entity Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Software Supply Chain Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
V5.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Object Injection (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-122Heap-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #16
A heap overflow condition is a buffer overflow, where the buffer that can be overwritten is allocated in the heap portion of memory, generally meaning that the buffer was allocated using a routine such as malloc().
Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
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
Forced Integer Overflow (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 16 Aug 2026, 18:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-502, CWE-122

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats