CVE-2016-10255 [Medium] | Memory Corruption in Elfutils

CVE-2016-10255 is rated Moderate Risk (48.8/100): CVSS Medium severity, with medium exploitation likelihood (EPSS 1.65%). EPSS rose +1.14% over the last day, indicating growing attacker interest. Review affected assets and schedule remediation.

#	Date	Old EPSS score	New EPSS score	Delta (New - Old)
1	2026-06-15	0.51%	1.65%	+1.14%
2	2025-05-22	0.40%	0.51%	+0.11%
3	2025-03-30	—	0.40%	—

Date

Old EPSS score

New EPSS score

Delta (New - Old)

2026-06-15

0.51%

1.65%

+1.14%

2025-05-22

0.40%

0.51%

+0.11%

2025-03-30

—

0.40%

—

Base score	Version	Severity	Vector	Exploitability	Impact	Score source
5.5	3.0	MEDIUM	`CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H` Click to expand Attack vector (AV:L) They already need access on the box, or another person has to do something wrong; it’s not a remote drive-by. Attack complexity (AC:L) Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup. Privileges required (PR:N) No account or special rights needed—anonymous or random user is enough. User interaction (UI:R) A real person has to do something—click, install, enable—otherwise it doesn’t land. Scope (S:U) Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems. Confidentiality (C:N) Doesn’t really leak secrets in a meaningful way. Integrity (I:N) Data isn’t meaningfully altered or forged. Availability (A:H) Could take the service down hard or make it unusable for people who depend on it.	1.8	3.6	[email protected]
4.3	2.0	MEDIUM	`AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P` Click to expand Access vector (AV:N) Can be exploited remotely over network reachability. Access complexity (AC:M) Exploitation needs some favorable conditions, but not exceptional ones. Authentication (AU:N) No authentication is required. Confidentiality impact (C:N) No confidentiality impact. Integrity impact (I:N) No integrity impact. Availability impact (A:P) Partial availability impact.	8.6	2.9	[email protected]

Base score

Version

Severity

Vector

Exploitability

Impact

Score source

5.5

3.0

MEDIUM

CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H Click to expand

Attack vector (AV:L): They already need access on the box, or another person has to do something wrong; it’s not a remote drive-by.
Attack complexity (AC:L): Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:N): No account or special rights needed—anonymous or random user is enough.
User interaction (UI:R): A real person has to do something—click, install, enable—otherwise it doesn’t land.
Scope (S:U): Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:N): Doesn’t really leak secrets in a meaningful way.
Integrity (I:N): Data isn’t meaningfully altered or forged.
Availability (A:H): Could take the service down hard or make it unusable for people who depend on it.

1.8

3.6

[email protected]

4.3

2.0

MEDIUM

AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P Click to expand

Access vector (AV:N): Can be exploited remotely over network reachability.
Access complexity (AC:M): Exploitation needs some favorable conditions, but not exceptional ones.
Authentication (AU:N): No authentication is required.
Confidentiality impact (C:N): No confidentiality impact.
Integrity impact (I:N): No integrity impact.
Availability impact (A:P): Partial availability impact.

8.6

2.9

[email protected]

OS Trackers for CVE-2016-10255

vendor	priority	summary	link
`debian`	low	CVE-2016-10255 low priority: Debian including 1 source packages (elfutils), 5 status rows across 5 suites (bookworm, bullseye, forky, sid, trixie): resolved 5.	https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2016-10255
`gentoo`	normal	CVE-2016-10255: 1 GLSA(s) (201710-10), 1 atom(s) (dev-libs/elfutils); latest impact normal.	https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=CVE-2016-10255
`redhat`	low	—	https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-10255
`suse`	low	CVE-2016-10255 severity low: SUSE including 50 source package names (24.56:elfutils-0.158-7.7.2, 24.56:libasm1-0.158-7.7.2, …), 245 product×package rows across 41 product lines (Container caasp/v4/nginx-ingress-controller, Container suse/ltss/sle12.5/sles12sp5, … (41 product lines)): Fixed 245.	https://www.suse.com/security/cve/CVE-2016-10255/
`ubuntu`	low	CVE-2016-10255 low priority: Ubuntu including 1 source packages (elfutils), 14 status rows across 14 suites (artful, bionic, cosmic, disco, eoan, focal, groovy, hirsute, precise, trusty, upstream, xenial, yakkety, zesty): released 11, ignored 3.	https://ubuntu.com/security/CVE-2016-10255

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2016-10255

Vendor	Product	Version	Raw CPE
elfutils_project	elfutils	<= 0.167	cpe:2.3:a:elfutils_project:elfutils::::::::

References for CVE-2016-10255

URL	Tags
http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2017/03/22/1	Mailing List Third Party Advisory
https://blogs.gentoo.org/ago/2016/11/04/elfutils-memory-allocation-failure-in-__libelf_set_rawdata_wrlock-elf_getdata-c/	Third Party Advisory
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387584	Issue Tracking Third Party Advisory
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/elfutils-devel%40lists.fedorahosted.org/thread/Q4LE47FPEVRZANMV6JE2NMHYO4H5MHGJ/
https://security.gentoo.org/glsa/201710-10
https://usn.ubuntu.com/3670-1/

URL

CVE-2016-10255

Exploit prediction scoring system (EPSS) score for CVE-2016-10255

Common vulnerability scoring system (CVSS) metrics for CVE-2016-10255

Weakness enumeration for CVE-2016-10255

OS Trackers for CVE-2016-10255

Affected software / configurations for CVE-2016-10255

References for CVE-2016-10255