CVE-2025-6021
Memory Safety in Redhat Openshift Container Platform 4.12 … 4.18
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-6021 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Redhat Openshift Container Platform. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 36% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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.
A flaw exists in libxml2 within the xmlBuildQName function, where integer overflows during buffer size calculations produce a stack-based buffer overflow. The affected component is the widely used libxml2 library, and the issue manifests as memory corruption or denial of service when the library processes specially crafted input. The vulnerability carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.5 with network attack vector, low complexity, and no required privileges or user interaction.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can supply malicious XML content to any application that links against the vulnerable libxml2 version, triggering the overflow to corrupt memory or crash the process and thereby achieve a high-impact denial of service. No confidentiality or integrity impact is possible according to the provided scoring.
Red Hat has published multiple errata (RHSA-2025:10630, RHSA-2025:10698, RHSA-2025:10699, RHSA-2025:11580, RHSA-2025:11673) that deliver patched libxml2 packages for affected Red Hat Enterprise Linux distributions.
The associated EPSS score remains flat at 0.0212 with no observed rise after disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-18175
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in libxml2's xmlBuildQName function, where integer overflows in buffer size calculations can lead to a stack-based buffer overflow. This issue can result in memory corruption or a denial of service when processing crafted input.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.