CVE-2025-3112
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 · uneditedCWE-400: Uncontrolled Resource Consumption vulnerability exists that could cause Denial of Service when an authenticated malicious user sends manipulated HTTPS Content-Length header to the webserver.
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 confidenceA resource consumption vulnerability exists where an authenticated attacker can manipulate the HTTPS Content-Length header to cause denial of service. By sending malformed or conflicting Content-Length values, the attacker can cause the webserver to allocate excessive resources, wait indefinitely for data, or exhaust memory while processing the request body.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Identify the web server or HTTPS serviceRun 'netstat -tlnp' or 'ss -tlnp' to list listening HTTPS services (port 443), or check your application documentation to confirm it handles HTTPS requests with Content-Length header processingAffected if The service processes HTTPS requests and uses Content-Length headers to determine request body size
-
Determine the installed versionQuery the installed version via the package manager (dpkg -l, rpm -qi, or similar) or check the application's --version outputAffected if The installed version falls within an affected range (compare to vendor advisories)
-
Verify Content-Length header handling is enabledCheck if the HTTP/HTTPS listener accepts and processes Content-Length headers by reviewing the server configuration files or testing with curl -X POST -H 'Content-Length: 10' -d 'test' https://targetAffected if The service processes Content-Length headers without validation
-
Check for request size limitsInspect configuration files for settings like 'client_max_body_size', 'LimitRequestBody', 'max-content-length', or similar that restrict incoming request sizesAffected if No limit is configured or the limit is absent/unrestricted
-
Inspect logs for anomalous Content-Length activitySearch HTTP access/error logs for requests with unusually large or conflicting Content-Length values (e.g., grep -i 'content-length' /var/log/nginx/access.log)
If your environment processes HTTPS requests with Content-Length headers and lacks strict validation plus request size limits, you are likely affected by this vulnerability.
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 dataImplement strict Content-Length header validation, enforce maximum request size limits, add timeout handling for incomplete request bodies, and ensure proper HTTP request parsing that rejects requests with conflicting Content-Length and Transfer-Encoding headers.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-3112 — 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-2025-3112 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