Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:P/PR:L/UI:A/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:L/SI:H/SA:L/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-0838 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Abseil Common Libraries. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 46th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-0838 is a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the Abseil-cpp library (CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound). It affects the sized constructors, reserve(), and rehash() methods of absl::flat_hash_set, absl::flat_hash_map, absl::node_hash_set, and absl::node_hash_map. These methods failed to impose an upper bound on the size argument, enabling a caller to supply an excessively large value. This triggers an integer overflow when calculating the container's backing store size, leading to an out-of-bounds memory write, with subsequent container accesses potentially causing additional out-of-bounds reads or writes.
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low attack complexity and no user interaction required (CVSS v3.1: 9.8/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). By passing a crafted large size argument to the vulnerable methods, the attacker induces the overflow and out-of-bounds write, which could result in arbitrary code execution, data corruption, or denial of service through memory corruption in applications relying on these Abseil-cpp hash container implementations.
Mitigation involves upgrading Abseil-cpp past commit 5a0e2cb5e3958dd90bb8569a2766622cb74d90c1, as detailed in the project's GitHub commit. Debian LTS has also announced updates addressing this issue in affected packages.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-4520
Vulnerability Data
There exists a heap buffer overflow vulnerable in Abseil-cpp. The sized constructors, reserve(), and rehash() methods of absl::{flat,node}hash{set,map} did not impose an upper bound on their size argument. As a result, it was possible for a caller to pass a…
more
very large size that would cause an integer overflow when computing the size of the container's backing store, and a subsequent out-of-bounds memory write. Subsequent accesses to the container might also access out-of-bounds memory. We recommend upgrading past commit 5a0e2cb5e3958dd90bb8569a2766622cb74d90c1
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.