CVE-2025-22868VulnerabilityPublished 10 Apr 2025Updated 25 Oct 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: RHTAS 1.1.2 - Red Hat Trusted Artifact Signer Release

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Not known to be exploited.

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.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 10 Apr 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 >=1.1.0 <=1.1.2 Red Hat Red Hat Trusted Artifact Signer Red Hat Trusted Artifact Signer 1.1 amd64 registry.redhat.io/rhtas/createtree-rhel9@sha256:d9ff8413f1d106cb5084b48b73b205db6dd5ad82818be4111c5cb118d9d135ae_amd64	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

It is recommended to implement pre-validation of JWT tokens to ensure they do not contain an excessive number of '.' characters before processing them with the vulnerable golang.org/x/oauth2/jws package. Monitor Red Hat advisories for updates on patches or official fixes.

Description

The RHTAS Operator can be used with OpenShift Container Platform 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, and 4.18

Impact

Successful exploitation can cause denial of service due to memory exhaustion in the token parsing process of RHTAS. This impacts availability but does not affect confidentiality or integrity. There are no known exploits in the wild. The severity is rated high by Red Hat based on the potential for denial of service.

Summary

The vulnerability CVE-2025-22868 exists in the token parsing component of the golang.org/x/oauth2/jws package, which is used by Red Hat Trusted Artifact Signer (RHTAS). The flaw arises because the code uses strings.Split(token, ".") to split JWT tokens, which can cause excessive memory consumption when tokens contain a large number of '.' characters. An attacker can exploit this by sending many malformed tokens, triggering memory exhaustion and denial of service. The affected product is RHTAS versions >=1.1.0 <=1.1.2. The vendor advisory does not indicate an official patch is available yet. The recommended mitigation is to pre-validate payloads to check for excessive '.' characters before passing them to the vulnerable component.

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, 22:08 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1286, CWE-405

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats