How severe is GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc?

GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc affects the following packages: time (crates.io). Ecosystems affected: crates.io.

How do I fix GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc?

Update time to 0.3.47 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc in my crates.io dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for time, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

How do I mitigate GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

Cap what an attacker can consume: apply request size, rate and timeout limits in front of the affected component, and run it with memory and CPU limits so exhaustion degrades one worker rather than the whole service.

Is GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc?

GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.3%, placing it in the 27th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc?

GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc is classified as CWE-121 (CWE-121). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc was published on February 5, 2026 and was last updated on September 10, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🦀 crates.io

Not in CISA KEV

time vulnerable to stack exhaustion Denial of Service attackGHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc

Fix: time-rs/time@1c63dc7

GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc is a CWE-121 vulnerability in time. A fix is available for time — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2026-25727RUSTSEC-2026-0009

Published

Feb 5, 2026

Updated

Sep 10, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Nov 9, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk-0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs27th percentile — riskier than 27% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

🦀time

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects crates.io packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Impact

When user-provided input is provided to any type that parses with the RFC 2822 format, a denial of service attack via stack exhaustion is possible. The attack relies on formally deprecated and rarely-used features that are part of the RFC 2822 format used in a malicious manner. Ordinary, non-malicious input will never encounter this scenario.

Patches

A limit to the depth of recursion was added in v0.3.47. From this version, an error will be returned rather than exhausting the stack.

Workarounds

Limiting the length of user input is the simplest way to avoid stack exhaustion, as the amount of the stack consumed would be at most a factor of the length of the input.

Alternatively, avoiding the format altogether would also ensure that the vulnerability is not encountered. To do this, add

disallowed-types = ["time::format_description::well_known::Rfc2822"]

to your clippy.toml file. This will trigger the clippy::disallowed_types lint, which is warn-by-default and can be explicitly denied.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🦀crates.io	`time`	≥ 0.3.6&&< 0.3.47	0.3.47`cargo update -p time --precise 0.3.47`

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations

Application

timetime_project

≥ 0.3.6 && < 0.3.47

range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for time, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update time to 0.3.47 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Cap what an attacker can consume: apply request size, rate and timeout limits in front of the affected component, and run it with memory and CPU limits so exhaustion degrades one worker rather than the whole service.

Fixing This On Your OS

If you run this on a Linux distribution, patch through your package manager against the distro's own security advisory below — it tracks the exact backported fix for your release, which can ship on a different timeline (and sometimes a different severity) than the upstream project.

Red HatModerate

Workaround published by Red Hat

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.

Source: Red Hat security advisory for GHSA-r6v5-fh4h-64xc (CC BY 4.0)

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact When user-provided input is provided to any type that parses with the RFC 2822 format, a denial of service attack via stack exhaustion is possible. The attack relies on formally deprecated and rarely-used features that are part of the RFC 2822 format used in a malicious manner. Ordinary, non-malicious input will never encounter this scenario. ### Patches A limit to the depth of recursion was added in v0.3.47. From this version, an error will be returned rather than exhausting the stack. ### Workarounds Limiting the length of user input is the simplest way to avoid stack exhaust