CVE-2025-0678
Memory Safety in Redhat Enterprise Linux 7.0 … 9.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-0678 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Redhat Enterprise Linux. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 21th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — 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-2025-0678 is an integer overflow vulnerability (CWE-190) in the GRUB2 bootloader's squash4 filesystem module. When GRUB2 reads data from a squash4 filesystem, it uses user-controlled parameters from the filesystem geometry to calculate internal buffer sizes but fails to properly check for integer overflows. A maliciously crafted squash4 filesystem can cause these buffer size calculations to overflow, resulting in a grub_malloc() allocation with a smaller size than intended. This leads to a heap-based out-of-bounds write during the subsequent direct_read() operation.
The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). A local attacker with low privileges can exploit it by providing a specially crafted squash4 filesystem image accessible during GRUB2's boot process. Exploitation corrupts GRUB2's internal critical data structures, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution and bypassing Secure Boot protections.
Mitigation details are available in the Red Hat security advisory at https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-0678 and the related Bugzilla entry at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346118.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-5569
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in grub2. When reading data from a squash4 filesystem, grub's squash4 fs module uses user-controlled parameters from the filesystem geometry to determine the internal buffer size, however, it improperly checks for integer overflows. A maliciously crafted…
more
filesystem may lead some of those buffer size calculations to overflow, causing it to perform a grub_malloc() operation with a smaller size than expected. As a result, the direct_read() will perform a heap based out-of-bounds write during data reading. This flaw may be leveraged to corrupt grub's internal critical data and may result in arbitrary code execution, by-passing secure boot protections.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer 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.
Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.