You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
A vulnerability has been found in tcpreplay 4.5.1. This...
Low severity
Unreviewed
Published
Aug 15, 2025
to the GitHub Advisory Database
•
Updated Aug 15, 2025
A vulnerability has been found in tcpreplay 4.5.1. This vulnerability affects the function mask_cidr6 of the file cidr.c of the component tcpprep. The manipulation leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack can be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The researcher is able to reproduce this with the latest official release 4.5.1 and the current master branch. The code maintainer cannot reproduce this for 4.5.2-beta1. In his reply the maintainer explains that "[i]n that case, this is a duplicate that was fixed in 4.5.2."
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it can read from or write to a memory location that is outside of the intended boundary of the buffer.
Learn more on MITRE.
CVE ID
CVE-2025-9019
GHSA ID
GHSA-f6rq-rhh3-fpff
Source code
No known source code
Dependabot alerts are not supported on this advisory because it does not have a package from a supported ecosystem with an affected and fixed version.
A vulnerability has been found in tcpreplay 4.5.1. This vulnerability affects the function mask_cidr6 of the file cidr.c of the component tcpprep. The manipulation leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack can be initiated remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation appears to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The researcher is able to reproduce this with the latest official release 4.5.1 and the current master branch. The code maintainer cannot reproduce this for 4.5.2-beta1. In his reply the maintainer explains that "[i]n that case, this is a duplicate that was fixed in 4.5.2."
References