CVE-2025-14104

A flaw was found in util-linux. This vulnerability allows a heap buffer overread when processing 256-byte usernames, specifically within the setpwnam() function, affecting SUID (Set User ID) login-utils utilities writing to the password database.

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	util-linux-0:2.40.2-15.el10_1	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	RedHat	util-linux-0:2.32.1-48.el8_10	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	RedHat	util-linux-0:2.32.1-48.el8_10	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9	RedHat	util-linux-0:2.37.4-21.el9_7	*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9	RedHat	util-linux-0:2.37.4-21.el9_7	*
Red Hat Ceph Storage 7	RedHat	rhceph/rhceph-7-rhel9:sha256:df2032db9a082aa0d08adfc76a18d65548d2c2f14dedad0dc35bc0117aca42b8	*
Red Hat Ceph Storage 8	RedHat	rhceph/rhceph-8-rhel9:sha256:ecd314ed5a994812d976dbccf0d3c4db54fadf5c1cba46d1fa0b2f0a1fd0e921	*
Red Hat Ceph Storage 9	RedHat	rhceph/rhceph-9-rhel9:sha256:8c65a91917296ce25845bd673c521448c89140a126216bf939355b40d38770db	*
Red Hat Insights proxy 1.5	RedHat	insights-proxy/insights-proxy-container-rhel9:sha256:ab86ba36e62e8aec5ba48e9e0076b1f8086c48157c85990be0e2ce3e03273016	*
Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5	RedHat	rhui5/installer-rhel9:sha256:48cf7cf48dfadb17f9357bf1894a5d0393551a893faa8b0ea0e11fe1ffed497f	*
Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5	RedHat	rhui5/cds-rhel9:sha256:200c27e9b396276bd505c6b41127ac5eb1d94d620172cb818ae733f2a21ac524	*
Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5	RedHat	rhui5/haproxy-rhel9:sha256:d98fd3fe5f5f9acd0efae7db19b61b864be1eb2fbe2586a1b6be2429fa2cc7a3	*
Red Hat Update Infrastructure 5	RedHat	rhui5/rhua-rhel9:sha256:5f1fbf66fb349a7baf066a1216d39989c3b89f18ec5108b96d9643baf4856778	*
Util-linux	Ubuntu	upstream	*

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-2025-14104
CWE	https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/125.html

Out-of-bounds Read

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

References

CVE-2025-14104

Out-of-bounds Read

Weakness

Affected Software

Potential Mitigations

Related Attack Patterns

References