Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-0685 is a medium-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Gnu Grub2. Its CVSS base score is 6.4 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 19th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-7 (Software, Firmware, and Information Integrity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-5577
Vulnerability Data
A flaw was found in grub2. When reading data from a jfs filesystem, grub's jfs filesystem module uses user-controlled parameters from the filesystem geometry to determine the internal buffer size, however, it improperly checks for integer overflows. A maliciouly 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 grub_jfs_lookup_symlink() function will write past the internal buffer length during grub_jfs_read_file(). This issue can 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
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of untrusted inputs (filesystem geometry parameters) to block the integer overflow and resulting undersized allocation that leads to the out-of-bounds write.
Verifies integrity of bootloader firmware and critical data structures, preventing or detecting the corruption and arbitrary code execution that bypasses secure boot.
Ensures executable boot components remain non-modifiable, limiting the attacker's ability to corrupt grub's internal state via the JFS buffer overflow.
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-development practices (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.