CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-62496

Integer Overflow or Wraparound

Published: Oct 16, 2025 | Modified: Oct 16, 2025
CVSS 3.x
N/A
Source:
NVD
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
MEDIUM

A vulnerability exists in the QuickJS engines BigInt string parsing logic (js_bigint_from_string) when attempting to create a BigInt from a string with an excessively large number of digits.

The function calculates the necessary number of bits (n_bits) required to store the BigInt using the formula:

$$text{n_bits} = (text{n_digits} times 27 + 7) / 8 quad (text{for radix 10})$$

  • For large input strings (e.g., $79,536,432$ digits or more for base 10), the intermediate calculation $(text{n_digits} times 27 + 7)$ exceeds the maximum value of a standard signed 32-bit integer, resulting in an Integer Overflow.

  • The resulting n_bits value becomes unexpectedly small or even negative due to this wrap-around.

  • This flawed n_bits is then used to compute n_limbs, the number of memory limbs needed for the BigInt object. Since n_bits is too small, the calculated n_limbs is also significantly underestimated.

  • The function proceeds to allocate a JSBigInt object using this underestimated n_limbs.

  • When the function later attempts to write the actual BigInt data into the allocated object, the small buffer size is quickly exceeded, leading to a Heap Out-of-Bounds Write as data is written past the end of the allocated r->tab array.

Weakness

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.

Potential Mitigations

  • Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
  • If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
  • Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482].
  • Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences.
  • Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
  • Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range.
  • Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
  • Understand the programming language’s underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, “not-a-number” calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7]
  • Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.

References