CVE-2025-9232

Issue summary: An application using the OpenSSL HTTP client API functions may trigger an out-of-bounds read if the no_proxy environment variable is set and the host portion of the authority component of the HTTP URL is an IPv6 address.

Impact summary: An out-of-bounds read can trigger a crash which leads to Denial of Service for an application.

The OpenSSL HTTP client API functions can be used directly by applications but they are also used by the OCSP client functions and CMP (Certificate Management Protocol) client implementation in OpenSSL. However the URLs used by these implementations are unlikely to be controlled by an attacker.

In this vulnerable code the out of bounds read can only trigger a crash. Furthermore the vulnerability requires an attacker-controlled URL to be passed from an application to the OpenSSL function and the user has to have a no_proxy environment variable set. For the aforementioned reasons the issue was assessed as Low severity.

The vulnerable code was introduced in the following patch releases: 3.0.16, 3.1.8, 3.2.4, 3.3.3, 3.4.0 and 3.5.0.

The FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the HTTP client implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.

Weakness

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

Affected Software

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.

Related Attack Patterns

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

References

• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2b4ec20e47959170422922eaff25346d362dcb35
• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/654dc11d23468a74fc8ea4672b702dd3feb7be4b
• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7cf21a30513c9e43c4bc3836c237cf086e194af3
• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/89e790ac431125a4849992858490bed6b225eadf
• https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bbf38c034cdabd0a13330abcc4855c866f53d2e0
• https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20250930.txt