ghsa-76r2-c3cg-f5r9
Vulnerability from github
Issue summary: An application using the OpenSSL HTTP client API functions may trigger an out-of-bounds read if the 'no_proxy' environment variable is set and the host portion of the authority component of the HTTP URL is an IPv6 address.
Impact summary: An out-of-bounds read can trigger a crash which leads to Denial of Service for an application.
The OpenSSL HTTP client API functions can be used directly by applications but they are also used by the OCSP client functions and CMP (Certificate Management Protocol) client implementation in OpenSSL. However the URLs used by these implementations are unlikely to be controlled by an attacker.
In this vulnerable code the out of bounds read can only trigger a crash. Furthermore the vulnerability requires an attacker-controlled URL to be passed from an application to the OpenSSL function and the user has to have a 'no_proxy' environment variable set. For the aforementioned reasons the issue was assessed as Low severity.
The vulnerable code was introduced in the following patch releases: 3.0.16, 3.1.8, 3.2.4, 3.3.3, 3.4.0 and 3.5.0.
The FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the HTTP client implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary.
{
"affected": [],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2025-9232"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-125"
],
"github_reviewed": false,
"github_reviewed_at": null,
"nvd_published_at": "2025-09-30T14:15:41Z",
"severity": null
},
"details": "Issue summary: An application using the OpenSSL HTTP client API functions may\ntrigger an out-of-bounds read if the \u0027no_proxy\u0027 environment variable is set and\nthe host portion of the authority component of the HTTP URL is an IPv6 address.\n\nImpact summary: An out-of-bounds read can trigger a crash which leads to\nDenial of Service for an application.\n\nThe OpenSSL HTTP client API functions can be used directly by applications\nbut they are also used by the OCSP client functions and CMP (Certificate\nManagement Protocol) client implementation in OpenSSL. However the URLs used\nby these implementations are unlikely to be controlled by an attacker.\n\nIn this vulnerable code the out of bounds read can only trigger a crash.\nFurthermore the vulnerability requires an attacker-controlled URL to be\npassed from an application to the OpenSSL function and the user has to have\na \u0027no_proxy\u0027 environment variable set. For the aforementioned reasons the\nissue was assessed as Low severity.\n\nThe vulnerable code was introduced in the following patch releases:\n3.0.16, 3.1.8, 3.2.4, 3.3.3, 3.4.0 and 3.5.0.\n\nThe FIPS modules in 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 are not affected by this\nissue, as the HTTP client implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module\nboundary.",
"id": "GHSA-76r2-c3cg-f5r9",
"modified": "2025-09-30T15:30:30Z",
"published": "2025-09-30T15:30:30Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2025-9232"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/2b4ec20e47959170422922eaff25346d362dcb35"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/654dc11d23468a74fc8ea4672b702dd3feb7be4b"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/7cf21a30513c9e43c4bc3836c237cf086e194af3"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/89e790ac431125a4849992858490bed6b225eadf"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/openssl/openssl/commit/bbf38c034cdabd0a13330abcc4855c866f53d2e0"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://openssl-library.org/news/secadv/20250930.txt"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": []
}
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.