CVE-2025-11021

A flaw was found in the cookie date handling logic of the libsoup HTTP library, widely used by GNOME and other applications for web communication. When processing cookies with specially crafted expiration dates, the library may perform an out-of-bounds memory read. This flaw could result in unintended disclosure of memory contents, potentially exposing sensitive information from the process using libsoup.

Weakness

The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.

Affected Software

Name	Vendor	Start Version	End Version
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10	RedHat	libsoup3-0:3.6.5-3.el10_0.7	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10	RedHat	libsoup3-0:3.6.5-3.el10_1.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle Support	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.2-9.el7_9	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.3-10.el8_10	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.3-10.el8_10	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update Support	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.3-1.el8_2.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.3-2.el8_4.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Extended Update Support Long-Life Add-On	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.3-2.el8_4.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Advanced Mission Critical Update Support	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.3-2.el8_6.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Telecommunications Update Service	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.3-2.el8_6.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Update Services for SAP Solutions	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.3-2.el8_6.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Update Services for SAP Solutions	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.62.3-3.el8_8.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.72.0-10.el9_6.3	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.72.0-12.el9_7.1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Update Services for SAP Solutions	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.72.0-8.el9_0.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Update Services for SAP Solutions	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.72.0-8.el9_2.6	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update Support	RedHat	libsoup-0:2.72.0-8.el9_4.6	*
Libsoup3	Ubuntu	jammy	*

Potential Mitigations

Assume all input is malicious. Use an “accept known good” input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, “boat” may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as “red” or “blue.”
Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code’s environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright.
To reduce the likelihood of introducing an out-of-bounds read, ensure that you validate and ensure correct calculations for any length argument, buffer size calculation, or offset. Be especially careful of relying on a sentinel (i.e. special character such as NUL) in untrusted inputs.

https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/540.html

NVD	https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-11021
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html

Out-of-bounds Read

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2025-11021

Out-of-bounds Read

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References