HDF5 CVE-2025-2926 Patch Guide: Null Pointer DoS Remediation

A null-pointer dereference in HDF5’s metadata cache code — tracked as CVE‑2025‑2926 — can cause application crashes when processing specially crafted HDF5 files and has been confirmed and patched upstream; operators and developers who build, ship, or accept HDF5 content must treat this as a local denial‑of‑service and apply fixes or mitigations immediately.

Background / Overview​

HDF5 is a foundational binary container and C library used throughout scientific computing, engineering, analytics and visualization stacks to store complex, chunked datasets and metadata. Many higher‑level languages and frameworks (for example, Python’s h5py, scientific toolkits and vendor appliances) link the HDF5 library either dynamically or statically; that means a single library bug can surface across a wide range of server‑side ingestion services, desktop tools, and embedded appliances. CVE‑2025‑2926 was published in late March 2025 and targets a specific function in the HDF5 C codebase: H5O__cache_chk_serialize in src/H5Ocache.c. The problem manifests as a null‑pointer dereference when the code attempts to copy a chunk image without first confirming that the source pointer is valid; the result is a crash (SIGSEGV) in processes that try to serialize certain object header chunks. Multiple vulnerability databases (NVD, distribution trackers) and the project’s own issue tracker recorded the problem, a public proof‑of‑concept reproduction was posted, and an upstream patch was merged into the HDFGroup repository.

---

What exactly is wrong? Technical anatomy​

Where the bug lives​

The vulnerability occurs inside the HDF5 metadata/object header cache serialization routine, specifically the function H5O__cache_chk_serialize. In plain terms, the function prepares an object header continuation chunk for writing (serializing) and then copies the chunk data into a provided output buffer. One of the fields used as the source pointer is not validated after a serialization helper is invoked, and the code calls a memory‑copy routine using that pointer even if it’s NULL. The upstream issue report highlights the offending pattern: a null read flashpoint at the H5MM_memcpy(image, chk_proxy->oh->chunk[chk_proxy->chunkno].image, len) call when image or the chunk image pointer is absent.

Why a single missing check matters​

In userland, dereferencing a NULL pointer typically kills one process; in practice for HDF5 that single process might be part of a service pool (ingesters, previewers, viewers) or a long‑running job. An attacker who can supply a crafted HDF5 file to a vulnerable process can induce a reproducible crash. In automated, internet‑facing ingestion pipelines this becomes a remotely‑triggerable denial‑of‑service because the attacker simply uploads the malformed file and the service decodes it on the server. On desktop systems the attack requires user interaction (opening a malicious file) but remains significant in targeted scenarios. Public reproducer steps and fuzzing harness output confirm that this crash is straightforward to trigger.

---

Affected versions and scope​

• The upstream record and several trackers list HDF5 up to and including v1.14.6 as affected by CVE‑2025‑2926. Distributions that ship older branches or vendor builds that embed that release are therefore at risk until they ship the fix.
• Distributions and vendors (Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE and others) have evaluated or mapped the CVE against their package populations; Ubuntu and Debian trackers record the vulnerability and note status and required package updates. Debian’s tracker also references the upstream commit that fixes the flaw.
• Exposure is limited to contexts that actually serialize object header chunks using the affected path. That said, many general‑purpose HDF5 consumers include the full metadata path by default — so practical exposure is wider than a narrow corner case: servers that accept untrusted HDF5 uploads, automated conversion/thumbnailing pipelines, and long‑lived appliances that process external datasets are priorities.

---

Exploitability, PoC status and realistic risk​

• Public reproducers: the HDFGroup issue contains a step‑by‑step reproduction (fuzzer harness and build instructions) that demonstrates a reproducible crash in H5O__cache_chk_serialize. That counts as a working proof‑of‑concept (PoC) for crashing the library with crafted input. Because there is a live PoC, urgency is higher for services that accept external files.
• Attack vector and privileges: CVE‑2025‑2926 is classified as local in the canonical trackers (attackers must supply files that are later opened/processed by vulnerable code). In server/cartridge models where upload → automated processing occurs without human gating, the local/remote distinction collapses: an unauthenticated attacker can effectively cause remote DoS by uploading a malformed HDF5 file and waiting for the worker to process it. Distribution trackers and CVSS vectors reflect this model (low privileges, low complexity).
• Exploitation beyond crash (RCE): the public advisories and NVD entry emphasize availability (crash/DoS) rather than immediate confidentiality or integrity effects. Heap or metadata corruption from a NULL dereference is usually crash‑centric; converting this primitive into reliable arbitrary code execution would require additional favorable conditions and is not described in the public disclosures. Treat claims of RCE as speculative unless demonstrated by independent exploit write‑ups.
• EPSS / exploitation likelihood: third‑party trackers show low-to-moderate short‑term exploit probability for this class of defect, but presence of a PoC and ubiquity of HDF5 in automated pipelines increases practical risk in real deployments. Assume automation will follow quickly in hostile threat models.

---

What upstream changed and where to get the fix​

The HDFGroup accepted and merged a focused patch that validates the presence of the chunk image before copying and ensures the serialization helper returns a valid image source prior to H5MM_memcpy. The upstream commit that closes the issue is recorded and included in the HDFGroup repository as the canonical fix (commit d37b537f… linked from the issue). Users should update to a release that contains that commit or apply the patch to their build. Distributors (Ubuntu, Debian, SUSE and others) have tracked the CVE and are either evaluating or packaging fixes; administrators should check vendor advisories and package changelogs for the exact fixed package version for their distribution. Debian’s tracker lists the CVE with links to the upstream issue and commit and notes where packages remain unfixed in its queues.

---

Practical remediation and mitigation playbook​

Immediate actions (high priority)

• Inventory: locate every binary, package, container image and appliance that includes HDF5 v1.14.6 or earlier. Search container registries and CI artifacts for versions or linked HDF5 artifacts. Prioritize hosts that automatically process uploaded HDF5 files.
• Patch: upgrade HDF5 to a release that includes the upstream fix, or apply the upstream commit/patch and rebuild. Where vendors have published backports, prefer vendor packages for production stability; otherwise, rebuild and redeploy after testing.
• Rebuild static artifacts: if any products statically link libhdf5 (common in some embedded or vendor images), rebuild those products with the patched library. Replacing a shared library is insufficient for statically linked binaries.

Short‑term mitigations (if patching is delayed)

• Disable or quarantine automatic processing of untrusted HDF5 uploads. Convert to an authenticated upload pipeline that performs file scanning before handing files to HDF5 decoding workers.
• Sandbox HDF5 decoding worker processes using OS‑level sandboxing (containers with seccomp/AppArmor, lightweight VMs, job cgroups) and enforce strict timeouts and memory limits to reduce blast radius of crashes.
• Add pre‑decode validation: where possible, implement a validation step that checks HDF5 structure and filter headers before invoking the library’s serialization paths; fail fast on unexpected or malformed metadata. This reduces the chance that the vulnerable path is reached.

Developer guidance

• Merge the upstream fix into any maintained internal forks and add unit tests that exercise object header chunk serialization, particularly the edge‑case where a chunk image pointer is absent. Add fuzzing targets for H5O cache routines (the public repro uses a fuzzing harness).
• Where projects rely on third‑party binaries (for example, Python wheels that bundle a specific HDF5), ensure those wheels are rebuilt against an updated HDF5 and republished. Document the HDF5 ABI/version your wheels are built against to simplify future triage.

---

Detection: indicators and monitoring​

• Crash signatures: repeated SIGSEGVs or worker restarts in processes that open or serialize HDF5 files are the primary indicator. Match stack traces that include H5O__cache_chk_serialize or references to H5Ocache.c. The HDFGroup issue and reproducer demonstrate deterministic crash behavior that operators can use for testing.
• Correlation with uploads: correlate process crashes with recent file uploads or automated ingestion timestamps. If you process files from the internet, isolate suspect uploads and check for known public PoC artifacts.
• Supply‑chain checks: look for old HDF5 versions embedded in vendor appliances, container images or CI artifacts. Use scanning tools to detect occurrences of v1.14.6 and earlier in your registries and repositories.

---

Windows‑specific considerations (practical for WindowsForum readers)​

• HDF5 on Windows: The HDF Group publishes binary installers and historically provides Windows builds for Visual Studio platforms; many Windows scientific toolchains and packaged distributions incorporate those binaries or build against HDF5 locally. Python distributions like Anaconda provide pre‑built h5py wheels that embed an HDF5 runtime linked to a specific HDF5 version. That means Windows desktops and servers can be affected when they run vulnerable HDF5‑linked applications or when external HDF5 files are opened by local tools.
• Desktop risk model: On Windows the common attack path is a malicious file sent via email, file share or download that a user opens in a viewer or analysis tool that links the vulnerable library. The operational impact is user session crashes and potential data loss; for administrative consoles that auto‑preview files, the risk model looks more like the server case and elevates urgency.
• Remediation on Windows: update the HDF5 runtime packaged with your application, install vendor security updates, and prefer pre‑built h5py/Anaconda packages rebuilt against fixed HDF5. If you ship a proprietary application that bundles HDF5 statically, deliver a patched application build rather than relying on users to update system libraries.

---

Why this matters operationally — prioritized risk assessment​

• High‑priority targets: cloud file ingestion services, image/data conversion pipelines, automated preview/thumbnail services and any multi‑tenant processing endpoints that accept HDF5 data. In those contexts an unauthenticated attacker can upload a crafted file and trigger crash cycles, causing availability outages or creating noise that hides other activity.
• Moderate‑priority targets: researcher workstations, developer machines, and desktop utilities where user interaction is required for exploitation; these are meaningful in targeted attacks and supply‑chain incidents where attackers deliver files to specific victims.
• Long tail and embedded systems: vendor appliances and statically linked binaries that rarely receive updates are high‑risk long‑tail exposure points. Forensic or production appliances that embed HDF5 in a monolithic binary require vendor coordination to remediate.

---

Caveats and unverifiable claims​

• Public advisories agree this is a null‑pointer dereference and that a PoC exists; however, available public information does not demonstrate reliable, practical remote code execution stemming from this specific defect. Claims that CVE‑2025‑2926 can be straightforwardly escalated into RCE remain unverified in the public record and should be treated with caution until independent exploit analyses demonstrate such an escalation.
• Distribution patch timelines vary: while the upstream HDFGroup patch has landed, specific binary packages from distributions or vendors may lag. Always verify the exact package changelog or commit hash before closing remediation tickets; Debian’s tracker documents which releases are still pending.

---

Checklist: what organizations should do now​

• Inventory and prioritize assets that use HDF5 v1.14.6 or earlier.
• Patch HDF5 in shared libraries and rebuild any statically‑linked binaries.
• Block or sandbox automatic processing of untrusted HDF5 files until fixes are applied.
• Add monitoring for crashes referencing H5Ocache serialization functions.
• Rebuild and republish any Python wheels or vendor artifacts that bundle the vulnerable HDF5.
• For vendors and packagers: treat this fix as urgent for appliances that accept external files; issue signed updates and clear guidance for customers.

---

Conclusion​

CVE‑2025‑2926 is a straightforward but practical vulnerability: a null‑pointer dereference in HDF5’s object header serialization that can crash processes handling crafted HDF5 files. The defect has been publicly documented, reproduced, and upstreamed with a focused fix; distribution trackers have mapped the CVE, and operational guidance is straightforward — inventory, patch, rebuild static artifacts, sandbox untrusted inputs, and monitor for crashes. While the immediate impact is availability (denial of service), the ubiquity of HDF5 in scientific and production pipelines makes timely remediation essential for any organization that accepts or processes external HDF5 files.

---

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center