CVE-2025-26597
Memory Safety in Redhat Enterprise Linux 7.0 … 9.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-26597 is a high-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Redhat Enterprise Linux. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Process Injection (T1055); ranked at the 36th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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-2025-26597 is a buffer overflow vulnerability in X.Org and Xwayland. The flaw occurs in the XkbChangeTypesOfKey() function: when called with a group value of 0, it resizes the key symbols table to zero while leaving the key actions unchanged. A subsequent call with a non-zero group value then triggers a buffer overflow due to the mismatched size of the key actions table. This issue, classified under CWE-119 (Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer), received a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8.
The vulnerability can be exploited by a local attacker with low privileges (PR:L). It requires local access (AV:L) and low attack complexity (AC:L) with no user interaction (UI:N), allowing the attacker to achieve high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:H/I:H/A:H) within the affected system's scope (S:U). Successful exploitation could enable arbitrary code execution or system compromise from a low-privileged context.
Red Hat has addressed the vulnerability through multiple errata releases, including RHSA-2025:2500, RHSA-2025:2502, RHSA-2025:2861, RHSA-2025:2862, and RHSA-2025:2865, which provide updated packages for affected X.Org and Xwayland components in various Red Hat Enterprise Linux versions. Security practitioners should apply these patches promptly to mitigate the risk.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-5382
Vulnerability Data
A buffer overflow flaw was found in X.Org and Xwayland. If XkbChangeTypesOfKey() is called with a 0 group, it will resize the key symbols table to 0 but leave the key actions unchanged. If the same function is later called…
more
with a non-zero value of groups, this will cause a buffer overflow because the key actions are of the wrong size.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
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 (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
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 catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.