Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-46819 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Redis Redis. Its CVSS base score is 6.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 40% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
Redis is an open source in-memory database that supports Lua scripting. CVE-2025-46819 affects all versions up to and including 8.2.1 and stems from insufficient bounds checking when processing specially crafted Lua scripts. The flaw, tracked under CWE-190 and CWE-125, permits an authenticated user to trigger an out-of-bounds read or an integer overflow that can crash the server.
An attacker with a local account and the ability to execute Lua scripts can supply a malicious script via the EVAL or FUNCTION command families. Successful exploitation yields either disclosure of adjacent memory contents or a denial-of-service condition that terminates the Redis process; the CVSS 6.3 vector reflects local access, high attack complexity, and low privileges.
The official fix is included in Redis 8.2.2. The project advisory and release notes also describe a non-patch workaround that uses ACL rules to revoke the EVAL and FUNCTION command families from untrusted users, thereby preventing Lua script execution without modifying the server binary. The associated EPSS scores remain low (current 0.0783, peak 0.0934) with no material upward trajectory after disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-33200
Vulnerability Data
Redis is an open source, in-memory database that persists on disk. Versions 8.2.1 and below allow an authenticated user to use a specially crafted LUA script to read out-of-bound data or crash the server and subsequent denial of service. The…
more
problem exists in all versions of Redis with Lua scripting. This issue is fixed in version 8.2.2. To workaround this issue without patching the redis-server executable is to prevent users from executing Lua scripts. This can be done using ACL to block a script by restricting both the EVAL and FUNCTION command families.
- 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.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
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.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
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.