CVE-2025-60887
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 issue was discovered in Cista v0.15 and below. Insecure deserialization of untrusted input under certain conditions may lead to leaking of stack/heap addresses which may be used to bypass ASLR. Classes with pointer-like mechanics under the cista::raw namespace are prone to reference tampering, where Cista does not perform sufficient checks to safeguard against self-referencing pointers and referencing other data within the payload. The leak occurs if the deserialized values are observable by the attacker.
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 confidenceInsecure deserialization in Cista C++ serialization library (v0.15 and below) allows leaking of stack/heap addresses through pointer-like classes in cista::raw namespace. Insufficient validation permits self-referencing pointers and cross-referencing within payloads, enabling ASLR bypass when deserialized values are observable to attackers.
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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
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 Cista C++ library usageSearch your codebase, build artifacts, or dependencies for 'cista' library files or headers (e.g., include/cista/*.h, libcista.a, libcista.so)Affected if The Cista serialization library is present in your environment
-
Check Cista library versionInspect the version tag in the library source, header files, or package manager metadata (look for version indicators in README, VERSION file, or library filename containing 'cista')Affected if The installed version is v0.15 or below (any version from initial release through v0.15)
-
Determine if deserialization of external data occursSearch code for calls to cista::deserialize, cista::raw::pointer, cista::raw::offset_ptr, or similar deserialization functions receiving data from network inputs, file uploads, or untrusted sourcesAffected if Your application deserializes data originating from untrusted or external sources using Cista
-
Check if deserialized values are exposed or observableInspect whether deserialized pointers, addresses, or serialized data contents are logged, returned to users, rendered in UI, or accessible via debugging interfacesAffected if Deserialized values (especially pointer-like objects) can be observed by attackers, enabling ASLR bypass
You are affected if your environment uses Cista v0.15 or below and deserializes untrusted data while exposing deserialized values (particularly pointer addresses) to observable channels.
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 dataAvoid deserializing untrusted data with Cista; upgrade to patched version when available; implement input validation and authenticated encryption for serialized data from untrusted sources.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-60887 — 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-2025-60887 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