CVE-2025-53905VulnerabilityPublished 9 Oct 2025Updated 1 Sep 2026

Red Hat Security Advisory: vim security update

Affects Red HatSource GCVE Database

Mentioned vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-53906

Not known to be exploited : upgrade to 8.2.2637-20.el9_4.1 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: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 24% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 8.2.2637-20.el9_4.1

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 9 Oct 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 8.2.2637-20.el9_4.1.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Red Hat Product Security Red Hat	Affected >=8.2.2637-20.el9_4.0 <8.2.2637-20.el9_4.1	Fixed in 8.2.2637-20.el9_4.1

AI-suggested

Red Hat has released updated Vim packages that fix these path traversal vulnerabilities. Users of affected Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update Support versions should apply the security update as detailed in the Red Hat advisory (RHSA-2025:17644) and the referenced article https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258. No additional mitigation steps are indicated beyond applying the official update.

Description

Red Hat has issued a security advisory for Vim addressing two path traversal vulnerabilities identified as CVE-2025-53905 and CVE-2025-53906. These vulnerabilities affect Vim packages in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update Support and related variants. The advisory rates the security impact as moderate and provides updated packages to remediate the issues.

Reports on CVE-2025-53905

Path traversal in vim (tar archive) CVE-2025-53905Reddit NetSec2025-07-20

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

Reports on CVE-2025-53905

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Sep 2026, 23:03 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-22

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats