Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2018-25299 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Mersenne (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 6th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2018-25299 is a local buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) in Prime95 version 29.4b8, a software tool used for Mersenne prime hunting and stress-testing. The flaw resides in the PrimeNet connection settings, where the optional proxy hostname field can be abused to inject a malicious payload, triggering a structured exception handling (SEH) overwrite that enables arbitrary code execution. It carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.4 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating high severity due to its potential for complete system compromise.
A local attacker can exploit this vulnerability with low attack complexity and no user privileges or interaction required. By supplying a specially crafted string in the proxy hostname field, the attacker triggers the buffer overflow, hijacks SEH control flow, and executes arbitrary system commands, potentially leading to full control over the affected system including data theft, modification, or denial of service.
Advisories and references, including Vulncheck's detailed analysis of the Prime95 29.4b8 SEH overflow and an Exploit-DB proof-of-concept (ID 44649), confirm the issue without specifying patches. The official Prime95 site at mersenne.org and its download page provide access to the software, where users should check for updated versions beyond 29.4b8 to mitigate exposure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2018-21819
Vulnerability Data
Prime95 29.4b8 contains a local buffer overflow vulnerability that allows attackers to execute arbitrary code by exploiting structured exception handling (SEH) mechanisms. Attackers can inject malicious payload through the optional proxy hostname field in the PrimeNet connection settings to trigger…
more
the overflow and execute system commands.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
Secure development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.