CVE-2025-66220
Description
A flaw was found in Envoy. This vulnerability allows mTLS (mutual Transport Layer Security) certificate validation bypass via a certificate containing an embedded null byte (\0) inside an OTHERNAME SAN (Subject Alternative Name) value.
Statement
This vulnerability is rated Moderate for Red Hat products. Envoy's mTLS certificate matcher, when configured with match_typed_subject_alt_names, may incorrectly validate certificates containing an embedded null byte in the OTHERNAME SAN field. This could allow an attacker to bypass mTLS authentication if they can present a specially crafted certificate.
Mitigation
Mitigation for this issue is either not available or the currently available options do not meet the Red Hat Product Security criteria comprising ease of use and deployment, applicability to widespread installation base, or stability.
Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) Score Details
Info alert:Important note
CVSS scores for open source components depend on vendor-specific factors (e.g. version or build chain). Therefore, Red Hat's score and impact rating can be different from NVD and other vendors. Red Hat remains the authoritative CVE Naming Authority (CNA) source for its products and services (see Red Hat classifications).
The following CVSS metrics and score provided are preliminary and subject to review.
CVSS v3 Score Breakdown
| Red Hat | NVD | cve.org | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base Score | 5 | 7.1 | N/A |
| Attack Vector | Network | Network | N/A |
| Attack Complexity | High | Low | N/A |
| Privileges Required | High | Low | N/A |
| User Interaction | None | None | N/A |
| Scope | Unchanged | Unchanged | N/A |
| Confidentiality | High | High | N/A |
| Integrity Impact | Low | Low | N/A |
| Availability Impact | None | None | N/A |
Vector
Red Hat: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
NVD: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/A:N
Understanding the Weakness (CWE)
Confidentiality,Integrity,Availability
Technical Impact: Read Memory; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
The case of an omitted null character is the most dangerous of the possible issues. This will almost certainly result in information disclosure, and possibly a buffer overflow condition, which may be exploited to execute arbitrary code.
Confidentiality,Integrity,Availability
Technical Impact: DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart; Read Memory; DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU); DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)
If a null character is omitted from a string, then most string-copying functions will read data until they locate a null character, even outside of the intended boundaries of the string. This could: cause a crash due to a segmentation fault cause sensitive adjacent memory to be copied and sent to an outsider trigger a buffer overflow when the copy is being written to a fixed-size buffer.
Integrity,Availability
Technical Impact: Modify Memory; DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
Misplaced null characters may result in any number of security problems. The biggest issue is a subset of buffer overflow, and write-what-where conditions, where data corruption occurs from the writing of a null character over valid data, or even instructions. A randomly placed null character may put the system into an undefined state, and therefore make it prone to crashing. A misplaced null character may corrupt other data in memory.
Integrity,Confidentiality,Availability,Access Control,Other
Technical Impact: Alter Execution Logic; Execute Unauthorized Code or Commands
Should the null character corrupt the process flow, or affect a flag controlling access, it may lead to logical errors which allow for the execution of arbitrary code.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not sure what something means? Check out our Security Glossary.
Want to get errata notifications? Sign up here.
