A flaw was found in Redis community. The cluster bus packet parser, responsible for handling PING, PONG, and MEET packets, fails to properly validate string-carrying extensions for null-termination. This oversight allows a remote attacker to craft a malicious packet, leading to an out-of-bounds...
Monitor for updates. Consider compensating controls or temporary mitigations.
Which compliance frameworks are affected?
Compliance analysis pending. Sign in for full compliance mapping when available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is CVE-2026-92925?
A flaw was found in Redis community. The cluster bus packet parser, responsible for handling PING, PONG, and MEET packets, fails to properly validate string-carrying extensions for null-termination. This oversight allows a remote attacker to craft a malicious packet, leading to an out-of-bounds read when the packet's payload is processed. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could result in the disclosure of sensitive information or a remote denial of service (DoS).
Is CVE-2026-92925 actively exploited?
No confirmed active exploitation of CVE-2026-92925 has been reported, but organizations should still patch proactively.
How to fix CVE-2026-92925?
No patch is currently available. Monitor vendor advisories for updates.
What is the CVSS score for CVE-2026-92925?
CVE-2026-92925 has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.1 (HIGH). The EPSS exploitation probability is 0.34%.
What are the technical details?
Original Advisory
A flaw was found in Redis community. The cluster bus packet parser, responsible for handling PING, PONG, and MEET packets, fails to properly validate string-carrying extensions for null-termination. This oversight allows a remote attacker to craft a malicious packet, leading to an out-of-bounds read when the packet's payload is processed. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could result in the disclosure of sensitive information or a remote denial of service (DoS).
CWE-125 — Out-of-bounds Read: The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
[Implementation] Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylis
[Architecture and Design] Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
AI Threat Alert