What is CVE-2025-49844?

CVE-2025-49844 is Redis Lua Use-After-Free may lead to remote code execution. The supplied enrichment data classifies it as Memory Corruption mapped to CWE-416 Use After Free.

Which versions are affected?

Affected product and version evidence is listed in the product table above. Current public advisories should be checked for exact version scope before patch targeting is finalized.

Is there active exploitation?

Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. If exploitation is not confirmed from current sources, teams should document that status and continue monitoring KEV, vendor, and telemetry updates.

No. CVE-2025-49844 is not listed in CISA KEV in the supplied enrichment data. KEV status should be monitored because it can change after initial disclosure or after exploitation becomes publicly confirmed.

Is there a public exploit?

67 public PoC repositories reported; 3 marked weaponized in current dataset. Public exploit or PoC availability should raise triage priority, especially for exposed or business-critical systems.

How can defenders detect it?

Start with web/proxy/WAF logs, application logs, network IDS/IPS where available. Look for vulnerability-class behavior, product errors, suspicious authentication events, exploit probes, and abnormal process activity based only on evidence that applies to the affected product.

How should teams prioritize it?

Prioritize CVE-2025-49844 using CVSS 9.9, EPSS 82%, KEV status, public PoC status, and asset exposure. Internet-facing, privileged, or business-critical deployments should be handled first.

Are workarounds available?

The supplied mitigation guidance says to apply vendor patches and restrict external exposure until fixed. Fixed-version evidence is listed in the mitigation section above.

Which threat actors are linked publicly?

No public threat actor linkage is confirmed from current sources. Do not attribute exploitation to a threat actor unless the source evidence explicitly supports that linkage.

What should be done in the next 24 hours?

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations. Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class. Open remediation tickets with affected assets, owners, evidence status, and detection coverage so decisions are traceable.

criticalMemory Corruptionpublic exploit

CVE-2025-49844

CVE-2025-49844 — Redis Lua Use-After-Free may lead to remote code execution

Redis is an open source, in-memory database that persists on disk. Versions 8.2.1 and below allow an authenticated user to use a specially crafted Lua script to manipulate the garbage collector, trigger a use-after-free and potentially lead to remote code execution. The problem exists in all versions of Redis with Lua scripting. This issue is fixed in version 8.2.2. To workaround this issue without patching the redis-server executable is to prevent users from executing Lua scripts. This can be done using ACL to restrict EVAL and EVALSHA commands.

Published Oct 3, 2025Updated Jun 17, 2026Sources: NVD, redis (CNA), GitHub, Red Hat (VEX)

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Reported

not confirmed by CISA

EPSS

82%

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

redis

CVSS base

9.9

critical · 3 sources

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

PoC

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Total

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

The vendor's own words where we have them.

Upgrade redis to a fixed release. Apply vendor patches per advisory and restrict external exposure of the affected component until patched.

Red Hat VEX · CVE-2025-49844

fixed298affected0not affected261

vendor_fix: For details on how to apply this update, which includes the changes described in this advisory, refer to: https://access.redhat.com/articles/11258

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.

Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.

Vendor	Product	Versions	Status
redis	redis	< 8.2.2	Vulnerable

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Availability

High

Confidentiality

High

Integrity

High

Scope

Changed

Attack Complexity

Low

Attack Vector

Network

Privileges Req

Low

User Interaction

None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
9.9	CVSS 3.1	critical	3.1	6	GitHub (CNA), NVD
10	CVSS 3.1	critical	—	—	redis (CNA)
8.8	CVSS 3.1	high	—	—	Red Hat (VEX)

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

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-416Use After Free

Inferred from the weakness class — not observed against this CVE.

CAPEC-100 · Overflow BuffersCAPEC-123 · Buffer Manipulation

Public exploit

Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.

Repositories

3 of the 5 sampled are weaponized

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.

Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable redis.
Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 67 public PoC repositories were reported.

web/proxy/WAF logsapplication logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.

2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 9.9 (AV:N)
Jun 17, 2026 · NVD
2025
Initial · CVE published
Oct 3, 2025 · NVD

References

14 on the record

github.com/redis/redis/commit/d5728cb5795c966c5b5b1e0f0ac576a7e69af539
Patch
github.com/redis/redis/releases/tag/8.2.2
Release Notes
github.com/redis/redis/security/advisories/GHSA-4789-qfc9-5f9q
Third Party Advisory
www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2025/10/07/2
Mailing List, Third Party Advisory
github.com/lastvocher/redis-CVE-2025-49844
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:19675
Vendor Advisory
access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:21936
Vendor Advisory
access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2025:19238
Vendor Advisory

Elsewhere on this site

redisevery CVE for this vendor
Memory Corruptionsame class
CWE-416other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record1

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2025-49844 is Redis Lua Use-After-Free may lead to remote code execution, a critical vulnerability affecting redis from redis. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Exploitation is reported, but no independent confirmation is available in the sources we have. Public exploit evidence is: 67 public PoC repositories reported; 3 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 9.9 describes technical severity, while EPSS 82% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.