CVE-2025-22058 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-22058
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-22058 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕗 17 Apr 2025, 20:22 UTC
Originally published on: 🕒 16 Apr 2025, 15:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-22058 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-22058: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: udp: Fix memory accounting leak. Matt Dowling reported a weird UDP memory usage issue. Under normal operation, the UDP memory usage reported in /proc/net/sockstat remains close to zero. However, it occasionally spiked to 524,288 pages and never dropped. Moreover, the value doubled when the application was terminated. Finally, it caused intermittent packet drops. We can reproduce the issue with the script below [0]: 1. /proc/net/sockstat reports 0 pages # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 1 mem 0 2. Run the script till the report reaches 524,288 # python3 test.py & sleep 5 # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 3 mem 524288 <-- (INT_MAX + 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT 3. Kill the socket and confirm the number never drops # pkill python3 && sleep 5 # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 1 mem 524288 4. (necessary since v6.0) Trigger proto_memory_pcpu_drain() # python3 test.py & sleep 1 && pkill python3 5. The number doubles # cat /proc/net/sockstat | grep UDP: UDP: inuse 1 mem 1048577 The application set INT_MAX to SO_RCVBUF, which triggered an integer overflow in udp_rmem_release(). When a socket is close()d, udp_destruct_common() purges its receive queue and sums up skb->truesize in the queue. This total is calculated and stored in a local unsigned integer variable. The total size is then passed to udp_rmem_release() to adjust memory accounting. However, because the function takes a signed integer argument, the total size can wrap around, causing an overflow. Then, the released amount is calculated as follows: 1) Add size to sk->sk_forward_alloc. 2) Round down sk->sk_forward_alloc to the nearest lower multiple of PAGE_SIZE and assign it to amount. 3) Subtract amount from sk->sk_forward_alloc. 4) Pass amount >> PAGE_SHIFT to __sk_mem_reduce_allocated(). When the issue occurred, the total in udp_destruct_common() was 2147484480 (INT_MAX + 833), which was cast to -2147482816 in udp_rmem_release(). At 1) sk->sk_forward_alloc is changed from 3264 to -2147479552, and 2) sets -2147479552 to amount. 3) reverts the wraparound, so we don't see a warning in inet_sock_destruct(). However, udp_memory_allocated ends up doubling at 4). Since commit 3cd3399dd7a8 ("net: implement per-cpu reserves for memory_allocated"), memory usage no longer doubles immediately after a socket is close()d because __sk_mem_reduce_allocated() caches the amount in udp_memory_per_cpu_fw_alloc. However, the next time a UDP socket receives a packet, the subtraction takes effect, causing UDP memory usage to double. This issue makes further memory allocation fail once the socket's sk->sk_rmem_alloc exceeds net.ipv4.udp_rmem_min, resulting in packet drops. To prevent this issue, let's use unsigned int for the calculation and call sk_forward_alloc_add() only once for the small delta. Note that first_packet_length() also potentially has the same problem. [0]: from socket import * SO_RCVBUFFORCE = 33 INT_MAX = (2 ** 31) - 1 s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM) s.bind(('', 0)) s.setsockopt(SOL_SOCKET, SO_RCVBUFFORCE, INT_MAX) c = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM) c.connect(s.getsockname()) data = b'a' * 100 while True: c.send(data)

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-22058

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-22058 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-22058

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-22058.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-22058, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-22058, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-22058 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-22058 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-22058 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-22058 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-22058: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-3800 – A vulnerability has been found in WCMS 11 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file app/co...
  • CVE-2025-3799 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in WCMS 11. Affected is an unknown function of the file app/controllers/AnonymousContr...
  • CVE-2025-3798 – A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in WCMS 11. This issue affects the function sub of the file app/admin/AdvadminCon...
  • CVE-2025-3661 – The SB Chart block plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via the ‘className’ parameter in all versions up to, and inclu...
  • CVE-2025-3404 – The Download Manager plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to arbitrary file deletion due to insufficient file path validation in the savePackage func...