CVE-2025-23085
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 · uneditedA memory leak could occur when a remote peer abruptly closes the socket without sending a GOAWAY notification. Additionally, if an invalid header was detected by nghttp2, causing the connection to be terminated by the peer, the same leak was triggered. This flaw could lead to increased memory consumption and potential denial of service under certain conditions. This vulnerability affects HTTP/2 Server users on Node.js v18.x, v20.x, v22.x and v23.x.
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 analysis · moderate confidenceThis is a memory leak vulnerability in Node.js HTTP/2 server implementation. When a remote peer abruptly closes the socket without sending a GOAWAY frame, or when an invalid header is detected causing connection termination, memory allocated for the connection is not properly freed. This leads to gradually increasing memory consumption, potentially resulting in denial of service through resource exhaustion.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify installed Node.js versionRun 'node --version' in the system terminal to get the exact version numberAffected if The installed version is within the vulnerable range and has not been patched for CVE-2025-23085
-
Confirm HTTP/2 server module is in useSearch project codebase for 'require("http2")' or 'import http2' statements, and check for http2.createServer() callsAffected if The application uses Node.js http2 module to create HTTP/2 servers
-
Verify HTTP/2 server accepts external connectionsReview server configuration to confirm the bind address is not restricted to localhost (i.e., listening on 0.0.0.0 or external IP rather than 127.0.0.1)Affected if The HTTP/2 server is reachable from remote peers over the network
-
Check for abrupt connection closure patternsEnable Node.js debug logging or network packet capture to monitor for client connections that terminate without sending a GOAWAY frameAffected if Remote clients can connect and terminate abruptly without proper HTTP/2 graceful shutdown
-
Monitor memory consumption of Node.js HTTP/2 processUse process monitoring tools (like 'process.memoryUsage()' in diagnostics or external tools like pm2, New Relic) to observe heap usage over timeAffected if Memory grows continuously without garbage collection reclaiming it, indicating the leak is occurring
A user is affected if their Node.js version is vulnerable, they run an HTTP/2 server accessible to remote clients, and they observe unexplained memory growth during normal operation.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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.
From vendor dataUpgrade Node.js to a patched version that addresses this memory leak. For systems that cannot upgrade immediately, consider implementing connection monitoring and periodic service restarts as a temporary mitigation measure.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23085 — 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-2025-23085 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