CVE-2025-22868VulnerabilityPublished 14 May 2025Updated 25 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation 4.18.3 Bug Fix Update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-22870

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 4.18.3 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 22:09 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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 4.18.3

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 May 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 4.18.3.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=4.18.0 <4.18.3 Red Hat Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation RHODF 4.18 for RHEL 9 s390x odf4/cephcsi-rhel9@sha256:845556d5d8fc2b5e56424219d99d07db672e352cd5d9801d2fec6d13312b99dc_s390x	Fixed in 4.18.3

AI-suggested

A fix is available in Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation version 4.18.3. Users should apply this update after ensuring all previously released errata relevant to their system have been applied. The update is distributed via Red Hat Container Registry. Follow the vendor's official guidance for applying the update: https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated by the vendor advisory.

Description

Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation is software-defined storage integrated with and optimized for the Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation. Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation is a highly scalable, production-grade persistent storage for stateful applications running in the Red Hat OpenShift Container Platform. In addition to persistent storage, Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation provisions a multi-cloud data management service with an S3 compatible API.

Impact

The vulnerabilities could lead to unexpected memory consumption and HTTP proxy bypass, potentially affecting the security and stability of the Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation storage platform. These issues may impact the handling of OAuth2 tokens and network proxy configurations, which could be exploited to bypass security controls or cause denial of service conditions. However, no known exploits in the wild have been reported at this time.

Summary

This advisory addresses two security vulnerabilities in Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation versions 4.18.0 up to but not including 4.18.3. CVE-2025-22868 involves unexpected memory consumption during token parsing in the golang.org/x/oauth2/jws package. CVE-2025-22870 concerns an HTTP proxy bypass vulnerability using IPv6 Zone IDs in the golang.org/x/net/http/httpproxy package. The update also includes other bug fixes and upgrades, such as an upgrade to the Ceph version RHCEPH-8.0z3. The vulnerabilities are fixed in version 4.18.3, which is available for multiple architectures including x86_64, ppc64le, s390x, and aarch64 on RHEL 9. The vendor advisory recommends applying this update after ensuring all previous errata are applied.

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-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (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
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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, 22:02 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1286, CWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats