Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- A structured source references public exploit or proof-of-concept material.
- EPSS is 0.25% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceRed Hat · Red Hat Enterprise Linux 10
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 5 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 5 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Debian, ubuntu findings are scoped to the named distribution, release and source package. An absent finding does not mean a package is unaffected.
BlackTree has verified remediation for at least one product or source, but the relevant distribution still reports no fixed package for 5 affected package states shown here. Treat those rows as affected with no fix until that distribution publishes a fixed version.
A published vendor fix does not prove that a matching update is enabled and installable on a particular asset. Confirm the local package candidate before scheduling remediation.
| Distribution release | Source package | Vendor state | Fixed version | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Debian trixietrixie · source | libsoup2.4 | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian trixietrixie · source | libsoup3 | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | libsoup2.4 | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian bookwormbookworm · source | libsoup3 | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian forkyforky · source | libsoup3 | Affected, no fix publishedDebian currently tracks this release as open. | Not published in this feed | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Debian sidsid · source | libsoup3 | Vendor fix publishedDebian records a fixed source-package version for this release. | 3.8.0-1 | Debian Security Tracker ↗Source updated 6 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | libsoup2.4 | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
| Ubuntu 24.04 LTSnoble · standard archive | libsoup3 | Under evaluationCanonical reports that the package might be affected and still needs evaluation or fixing. | Not published in this feed | Canonical Ubuntu Security ↗Source updated 5 Oct 2026 |
Medium technical severity with public exploit material referenced by a structured source; prioritise exposed affected systems while verifying vendor guidance. Verified remediation exists for at least one product or source, but 5 structured product or package states remain unresolved. Apply remediation only to the exact product branch confirmed by its source.
Fix availability varies by productA heap out-of-bounds read flaw was found in libsoup. When parsing multipart HTTP messages, an integer type mismatch between the caller and soup_headers_parse() can cause the length parameter to be incorrectly truncated, leading to a heap buffer over-read. A remote attacker could use this flaw to crash an application using libsoup or potentially disclose heap memory contents.
A heap out-of-bounds read flaw was found in libsoup. When parsing multipart HTTP messages, an integer type mismatch between the caller and soup_headers_parse() can cause the length parameter to be incorrectly truncated, leading to a heap buffer over-read. A remote attacker could use this flaw to crash an application using libsoup or potentially disclose heap memory contents.
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
A heap out-of-bounds read flaw was found in libsoup. When parsing multipart HTTP messages, an integer type mismatch between the caller and soup_headers_parse() can cause the length parameter to be incorrectly truncated, leading to a heap buffer over-read. A remote attacker could use this flaw to crash an application using libsoup or potentially disclose heap memory contents.
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation without authentication after a user interaction. If successful, the issue may disrupt the affected service.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
A structured CVE source labels at least one public reference as exploit material. BlackTree has not independently validated that it is safe, reliable or weaponised.
CWE-125: Out-of-bounds Read. The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:LCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 21 Jul 2026 · Last source change 23 Jul 2026, 14:19 UTC · CWE-125 · Out-of-bounds Read
Missing structured fields: affected versions. Missing data is not evidence of low risk; review the primary advisory.