CVE-2025-26599
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 · uneditedAn access to an uninitialized pointer flaw was found in X.Org and Xwayland. The function compCheckRedirect() may fail if it cannot allocate the backing pixmap. In that case, compRedirectWindow() will return a BadAlloc error without validating the window tree marked just before, which leaves the validated data partly initialized and the use of an uninitialized pointer later.
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 · high confidenceAn uninitialized pointer vulnerability exists in X.Org and Xwayland where compCheckRedirect() fails to properly validate the window tree when a backing pixmap allocation fails. This leaves validated data partly initialized, and an uninitialized pointer is later dereferenced, potentially allowing local privilege escalation or denial of service.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
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= 7.0= 8.0= 9.0all versions< 21.1.16< 24.1.6CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Check X.org X Server versionRun 'Xorg -version' or check your package manager for xorg-x11-server version (e.g., 'rpm -qa | grep xorg-x11-server' or 'dpkg -l | grep xserver-xorg')Affected if The installed version is earlier than 21.1.16
-
Check Xwayland versionRun 'Xwayland --version' or check your package manager for xwayland package versionAffected if The installed version is earlier than 24.1.6
-
Check if Composite extension is enabledExamine X server configuration files (xorg.conf, xorg.conf.d/) for 'Composite' extension being loaded, or check running X session with 'xdpyinfo' to see if Composite extension is listed as availableAffected if Composite extension is enabled and being used (the vulnerable code path in compCheckRedirect() is only triggered when composite window redirection is active)
-
Check for TigerVNC installationCheck package manager for tigervnc packages (e.g., 'rpm -qa | grep tigervnc' or 'dpkg -l | grep vnc')Affected if TigerVNC is installed (all versions are affected)
You are affected if you are running a vulnerable X.org X Server version before 21.1.16 or Xwayland before 24.1.6, and the Composite extension is enabled and actively redirecting windows.
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 data21.1.1624.1.6
Update X.Org Server and Xwayland to versions containing the fix that properly validates window tree state before returning BadAlloc errors on pixmap allocation failure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-26599 — 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 sources- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- bugzilla.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- access.redhat.com
- lists.debian.org
- nvd.nist.gov
Practitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-26599 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