CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-1936

Improper Neutralization of Null Byte or NUL Character

Published: Mar 04, 2025 | Modified: Nov 03, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
5.4 LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
Ubuntu
MEDIUM
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

jar: URLs retrieve local file content packaged in a ZIP archive. The null and everything after it was ignored when retrieving the content from the archive, but the fake extension after the null was used to determine the type of content. This could have been used to hide code in a web extension disguised as something else like an image. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 136, Firefox ESR < 128.8, Thunderbird < 136, and Thunderbird < 128.8.

Weakness

The product receives input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes NUL characters or null bytes when they are sent to a downstream component.

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
FirefoxMozilla*128.8.0 (excluding)
FirefoxMozilla*136.0 (excluding)
ThunderbirdMozilla*128.8.0 (excluding)
ThunderbirdMozilla129.0 (including)136.0 (excluding)
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Extended Lifecycle SupportRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el7_9*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8RedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el8_10*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.2 Advanced Update SupportRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el8_2*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Advanced Mission Critical Update SupportRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el8_4*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Telecommunications Update ServiceRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el8_4*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.4 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el8_4*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Advanced Mission Critical Update SupportRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el8_6*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Telecommunications Update ServiceRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el8_6*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.6 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el8_6*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.8 Extended Update SupportRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el8_8*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9RedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el9_5*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.0 Update Services for SAP SolutionsRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el9_0*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.2 Extended Update SupportRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el9_2*
Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9.4 Extended Update SupportRedHatfirefox-0:128.8.0-1.el9_4*
FirefoxUbuntufocal*
Mozjs102Ubuntuesm-apps/noble*
Mozjs102Ubuntujammy*
Mozjs102Ubuntunoble*
Mozjs115Ubuntunoble*
Mozjs115Ubuntuoracular*
Mozjs115Ubuntuplucky*
Mozjs52Ubuntuesm-infra/bionic*
Mozjs52Ubuntufocal*
Mozjs68Ubuntuesm-infra/focal*
Mozjs68Ubuntufocal*
Mozjs78Ubuntujammy*
Mozjs91Ubuntujammy*
ThunderbirdUbuntufocal*
ThunderbirdUbuntujammy*
ThunderbirdUbuntuupstream*

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.

References