CVE-2025-48595
In multiple locations, there is a possible way to achieve code execution due to an integer overflow.
High
Known exploited
- Severity
- 8.4 / 10
- High · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 1.95%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 80.19% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- Yes
- In CISA's catalog since Jun 2, 2026
- Weakness
- CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
- Fix
- None yet
- No fixed version published
Exploited in the wild. Android Framework Integer Overflow Vulnerability (Android Framework). Required action: Apply mitigations per vendor instructions, follow applicable BOD 22-01 guidance for cloud services, or discontinue use of the product if mitigations are unavailable. Due for U.S. federal agencies by Jun 5, 2026.
Description
In multiple locations, there is a possible way to achieve code execution due to an integer overflow. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
How to fix
No fixed version has been published yet. Until one is, remove or replace the package, or turn off or isolate the affected feature. This page updates when a fix ships.
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 8.4
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
- Attack vector
- Local
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound
The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.
How to prevent it
- Requirements: Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
- Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
- Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid [REF-1482]. Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences. Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
- Implementation: Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range. Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
- Implementation: Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7] Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.
- Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
- Implementation: Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.
References
Advisories
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog
- Remediation due for U.S. federal agencies
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-4642-5mcj-2rqw Forge: ASN.1 OID first arc truncation in asn1.oidToDer | Low | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
| GHSA-4rm8-3hmm-39fg Pillow: Reachable undefined behavior in native integer operations, potentially leading to denial of service or logic integrity compromise | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
| GHSA-f63g-mx39-3r38 Microsoft Security Advisory CVE-2026-85363 - .NET and Visual Studio Remote Code Execution Vulnerability | High | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
| CVE-2026-97229 Integer Overflow or Wraparound in GitLab | Critical Known exploited | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
| RUSTSEC-2026-0314 Guest can panic host through filesystem datetime overflow | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
| GHSA-p6m2-r3w9-mpxw rclone local: crafted Range request against a translated symlink panics (DoS) | Medium | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
| EEF-CVE-2026-82737 Ash.Vector wraps the 16-bit dimension header for vectors over 65,535 elements, corrupting data and crashing reads | Not rated yet | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
| GHSA-mrpp-v6pg-p54x klever-go: SFT add-quantity `int64` overflow bypasses a finite per-nonce MaxSupply | High | Same weakness, CWE-190 |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor