abseil CVE Vulnerabilities & Metrics

Focus on abseil vulnerabilities and metrics.

Last updated: 01 Aug 2025, 22:25 UTC

About abseil Security Exposure

This page consolidates all known Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) associated with abseil. We track both calendar-based metrics (using fixed periods) and rolling metrics (using gliding windows) to give you a comprehensive view of security trends and risk evolution. Use these insights to assess risk and plan your patching strategy.

For a broader perspective on cybersecurity threats, explore the comprehensive list of CVEs by vendor and product. Stay updated on critical vulnerabilities affecting major software and hardware providers.

Global CVE Overview

Total abseil CVEs: 1
Earliest CVE date: 21 Feb 2025, 15:15 UTC
Latest CVE date: 21 Feb 2025, 15:15 UTC

Latest CVE reference: CVE-2025-0838

Rolling Stats

30-day Count (Rolling): 0
365-day Count (Rolling): 1

Calendar-based Variation

Calendar-based Variation compares a fixed calendar period (e.g., this month versus the same month last year), while Rolling Growth Rate uses a continuous window (e.g., last 30 days versus the previous 30 days) to capture trends independent of calendar boundaries.

Variations & Growth

Month Variation (Calendar): 0%
Year Variation (Calendar): 0%

Month Growth Rate (30-day Rolling): 0.0%
Year Growth Rate (365-day Rolling): 0.0%

Monthly CVE Trends (current vs previous Year)

Annual CVE Trends (Last 20 Years)

Critical abseil CVEs (CVSS ≥ 9) Over 20 Years

CVSS Stats

Average CVSS: 0.0

Max CVSS: 0

Critical CVEs (≥9): 0

CVSS Range vs. Count

Range Count
0.0-3.9 1
4.0-6.9 0
7.0-8.9 0
9.0-10.0 0

CVSS Distribution Chart

Top 5 Highest CVSS abseil CVEs

These are the five CVEs with the highest CVSS scores for abseil, sorted by severity first and recency.

All CVEs for abseil

CVE-2025-0838 abseil vulnerability CVSS: 0 21 Feb 2025, 15:15 UTC

There exists a heap buffer overflow vulnerable in Abseil-cpp. The sized constructors, reserve(), and rehash() methods of absl::{flat,node}hash{set,map} did not impose an upper bound on their size argument. As a result, it was possible for a caller to pass a very large size that would cause an integer overflow when computing the size of the container's backing store, and a subsequent out-of-bounds memory write. Subsequent accesses to the container might also access out-of-bounds memory. We recommend upgrading past commit 5a0e2cb5e3958dd90bb8569a2766622cb74d90c1