Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2025-0838
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThere 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
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysisAn arithmetic operation produces a value too large for its type and wraps around to an unexpected — often tiny or negative — number. That miscalculated value then drives a memory allocation or a bounds check, opening the door to corruption. The fix is checked arithmetic and validating sizes before they're used.
General guidance for the integer overflow class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 11.0< 20250127.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
dbcve · scoped20250127.0
abseil-cpp version 20250127.0 or later (or any version containing commit 5a0e2cb5e3958dd90bb8569a2766622cb74d90c1)
- 1. Identify all applications and libraries that depend on abseil-cpp in your environment
- 2. For each project using abseil-cpp, locate the build configuration (CMakeLists.txt, conanfile.txt, vcpkg.json, package-lock.json, or similar) that specifies the abseil-cpp version
- 3. Update the abseil-cpp dependency to version 20250127.0 or later (or to a version that includes commit 5a0e2cb5e3958dd90bb8569a2766622cb74d90c1)
- 4. Rebuild the affected projects to incorporate the fixed version of abseil-cpp
- 5. Redeploy the rebuilt applications to production environments
- 6. Verify that the applications function correctly after the upgrade
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0838 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-0838 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data