LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2025-61732: Potential code smuggling via doc comments in cmd/cgo

A discrepancy between how Go and C/C++ comments were parsed allowed for code smuggling into the resulting cgo binary.

HighCVSS 8.6Not KEV-listedUpdated
Discuss exposureBack to CVEs
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysishigh

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

A parsing mismatch in Go’s cgo tool could hide C/C++ code inside documentation comments and include it in a compiled binary. This creates a software supply-chain risk: reviewed source may appear harmless while the resulting program contains unintended code. Successful abuse could compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Executive priority

Prioritize remediation for internet-facing or sensitive software built with cgo, especially where external contributors or third-party dependencies enter builds. Treat this as a high-priority supply-chain control issue, but not as evidence of an ongoing breach. Obtain an exact vendor version determination before declaring systems affected or cleared.

Technical view

CVE-2025-61732 is a CWE-94 code-injection flaw caused by differing Go and C/C++ comment interpretation in cmd/cgo. It has CVSS 3.1 score 8.6 with local access, low complexity, no privileges, user interaction, changed scope, and high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts. The supplied version range is ambiguous and should be confirmed against Go guidance.

Likely exposure

Exposure centers on organizations compiling cgo projects with affected Go toolchains, particularly where source contributions or dependencies are not fully trusted. Already-built binaries may also warrant review. The source bundle does not establish which downstream products contain vulnerable build artifacts, and its affected-version notation is insufficiently clear for definitive fleet matching.

Exploitation context

The CVE is not listed in CISA KEV within the supplied bundle, and no cited evidence establishes active exploitation. Abuse requires crafted source to reach a cgo build and user interaction, such as building affected code. This is therefore most concerning in developer workstations, CI systems, dependency pipelines, and source-review workflows.

Researcher notes

The central issue is parser differential behavior: text treated as documentation by one stage may be interpreted as executable C/C++ content by another. The bundle identifies cmd/cgo and CWE-94, but does not provide a clearly stated fixed Go release or evidence of exploitation. Researchers should avoid inferring downstream exposure solely from application runtime behavior.

Mitigation direction

  • Consult the Go advisory for exact fixed releases and upgrade affected toolchains.
  • Apply applicable Red Hat security updates on systems using vendor-packaged Go.
  • Rebuild relevant cgo binaries with a confirmed fixed toolchain.
  • Restrict untrusted source and dependency changes entering cgo build pipelines.
  • Review unexpected documentation-comment changes in Go files that interact with cgo.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory Go versions used by developers, CI runners, and release builders.
  • Identify repositories and build jobs that invoke cmd/cgo.
  • Compare installed versions with the exact affected and fixed ranges in vendor guidance.
  • Review provenance of cgo source and dependencies used in released binaries.
  • Confirm rebuilt artifacts originated from patched, controlled build environments.
Prepared
Confidence
medium
Sources
7

Public sources used

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · medium confidence lookup

CWE-94: Code execution behavior lookup

Code execution and unsafe deserialization weaknesses often justify reviewing execution behavior and process telemetry. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2025-61732 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
High
CVSS
8.6 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

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

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

2CVSS vectors
5Timeline events
2ADP providers
39Source links

SSVC decision data

CISA-ADPCISA Coordinator
Timestamp
Version
2.0.3
Exploitation: noneAutomatable: noTechnical Impact: total

CVSS vector scores

2 official scores

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
8.6CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H1.86CISA-ADP
7.4CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N2.25.2redhat-SADP

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 3.1 score

8.6High
CVSS 3.1 vector shape for CVE-2025-61732Attack VectorAttack ComplexityPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionScopeConfidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact

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

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NoneRequired
Scope
ChangedUnchanged
Confidentiality Impact
HighLowNone
Integrity Impact
HighLowNone
Availability Impact
HighLowNone

Vulnerability timeline

Timeline events are normalized from CVE metadata, CNA source timelines, ADP timelines, and KEV metadata when present.

  1. CVE reservedCVE Program

    The CVE ID was reserved by the assigning CNA.

  2. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Made public.

  3. CVE publishedCVE Program

    The CVE record was published.

  4. ADP timelineredhat-SADP

    Reported to Red Hat.

  5. CVE updatedCVE Program

    The CVE record metadata indicates this as the latest update time.

ADP provider summaries

CISA-ADPCISA ADP Vulnrichment
cvssV3_1other:ssvc
redhat-SADPcmd/cgo: Go cgo: Code smuggling due to comment parsing discrepancy
other:Red Hat severity ratingcvssV3_1
  • 2026-02-05T05:00:47.678Z: Reported to Red Hat.
  • 2026-02-05T03:42:26.392Z: Made public.

Source materials

Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
Go toolchaincmd/cgocmd/cgo, 0, 1.25.0-0unaffected
Weakness

CWE details

CWE-94

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-94 · source CWE mapping

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')

Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection') represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.

Open CWE intelligenceSame-CWE CVEs