Skip to content

CVE-2025-69419

Out-of-bounds Write: Is CVE-2025-69419 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
PoC (unverified)
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
7.4 High
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.4%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write
CWE

High CVSS base score, but low real-world exploitation probability (EPSS). Likely less urgent than the score implies.

public exploits

links to sources — we don’t host code

Unverified proof-of-concept code has been published. It may or may not be functional — assess before relying on it.

scanner noise

anonymous, aggregated from real reports · via Denoizr
ScannerFlagged inTurned out noise
Wiz1 scan0%

How often this CVE was flagged by each scanner and how much turned out to be noise (false positives), aggregated anonymously from de-noised reports. Higher noise means the alert is more often not a real risk — verify your exposure.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Real, but low real-world risk

A genuine vulnerability on paper, but EPSS shows little real-world exploitation — the base score may overstate urgency. This is not the same as a false positive.

Based on CVSS · FIRST EPSS

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:OpenSSL

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Issue summary: Calling PKCS12_get_friendlyname() function on a maliciously crafted PKCS#12 file with a BMPString (UTF-16BE) friendly name containing non-ASCII BMP code point can trigger a one byte write before the allocated buffer. Impact summary: The out-of-bounds write can cause a memory corruption which can have various consequences including a Denial of Service. The OPENSSL_uni2utf8() function performs a two-pass conversion of a PKCS#12 BMPString (UTF-16BE) to UTF-8. In the second pass, when emitting UTF-8 bytes, the helper function bmp_to_utf8() incorrectly forwards the remaining UTF-16 source byte count as the destination buffer capacity to UTF8_putc(). For BMP code points above U+07FF, UTF-8 requires three bytes, but the forwarded capacity can be just two bytes. UTF8_putc() then returns -1, and this negative value is added to the output length without validation, causing the length to become negative. The subsequent trailing NUL byte is then written at a negative offset, causing write outside of heap allocated buffer. The vulnerability is reachable via the public PKCS12_get_friendlyname() API when parsing attacker-controlled PKCS#12 files. While PKCS12_parse() uses a different code path that avoids this issue, PKCS12_get_friendlyname() directly invokes the vulnerable function. Exploitation requires an attacker to provide a malicious PKCS#12 file to be parsed by the application and the attacker can just trigger a one zero byte write before the allocated buffer. For that reason the issue was assessed as Low severity according to our Security Policy. The FIPS modules in 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3 and 3.0 are not affected by this issue, as the PKCS#12 implementation is outside the OpenSSL FIPS module boundary. OpenSSL 3.6, 3.5, 3.4, 3.3, 3.0 and 1.1.1 are vulnerable to this issue. OpenSSL 1.0.2 is not affected by this issue.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-69419
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-69419/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-69419)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-69419"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2025-69419/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2025-69419"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    This scores high on paper (CVSS 7.4) but the real-world signal is low. It is not in CISA KEV and no public exploit was found, and near-term exploitation looks unlikely (EPSS about 0%). Verify your own exposure before treating it as urgent. It is reachable over the network with no authentication and no user interaction, which is the most dangerous profile. Not an emergency for most teams, but patch it in your normal cycle and check whether the affected component is actually exposed in your setup.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-787 · Out-of-bounds Write.