Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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-2025-62507 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Redis Redis. Its CVSS base score is 7.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 7% 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 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-2025-62507 is a stack buffer overflow vulnerability in Redis, an open source in-memory database that persists on disk. The issue affects versions 8.2.0 and above, where a user can execute the XACKDEL command with multiple IDs to trigger the overflow, potentially leading to remote code execution. It is associated with CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation), CWE-121 (Stack-based Buffer Overflow), and CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write), and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
An authenticated attacker with low privileges (PR:L) can exploit this vulnerability over the network (AV:N) with low complexity and no user interaction required. By sending a specially crafted XACKDEL command containing multiple IDs, the attacker triggers the stack buffer overflow, potentially achieving remote code execution on the redis-server, resulting in high impacts to confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
The vulnerability is fixed in Redis version 8.2.3, as detailed in the official release notes and the associated GitHub security advisory (GHSA-jhjx-x4cf-4vm8). A workaround without patching involves using Redis ACL rules to restrict execution of the XACKDEL command by users. The fixing commit is available at https://github.com/redis/redis/commit/5f83972188f6e5b1d6f1940218c650a9cbdf7741.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-37903
Vulnerability Data
Redis is an open source, in-memory database that persists on disk. In versions 8.2.0 and above, a user can run the XACKDEL command with multiple ID's and trigger a stack buffer overflow, which may potentially lead to remote code execution.…
more
This issue is fixed in version 8.2.3. To workaround this issue without patching the redis-server executable is to prevent users from executing XACKDEL operation. This can be done using ACL to restrict XACKDEL command.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 8 hardening rules · 4 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability to execute injected code after a stack overflow.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
Secure-engineering principles include bounds-checked coding and safe buffer handling that avoid introducing the 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 directly require and enforce input validation during development.
Vulnerability scanning can discover stack buffer overflows but does not prevent their introduction.
Patching eliminates known instances of the weakness after discovery.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248594 OL 8 must implement address space layout randomization (ASLR) to protect its memory from unauthorized code execution. prevents CWE-121
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-121
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20