Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-0689 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Gnu Grub2. 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 38th 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 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-2025-0689 is a heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) in the GRUB bootloader's UDF filesystem module. The flaw occurs when reading data from disk, as the module uses user-controlled data length metadata from the filesystem to allocate internal buffers. While iterating through disk sectors, GRUB assumes the actual read size from disk is always smaller than the allocated buffer size, which is not guaranteed. A crafted UDF filesystem image can trigger the overflow, corrupting critical data.
The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating high impact. A local attacker with no privileges can exploit it by tricking a user into loading or booting from a malicious UDF filesystem image, such as via removable media. Successful exploitation may lead to arbitrary code execution, potentially bypassing secure boot protections.
Mitigation details are available in vendor advisories, including Red Hat's security page at https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-0689, the associated Bugzilla ticket at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346122, and the GRUB development mailing list discussion at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2025-02/msg00024.html. Security practitioners should review these resources for patches, updated GRUB packages, and deployment guidance.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-5596
Vulnerability Data
When reading data from disk, the grub's UDF filesystem module utilizes the user controlled data length metadata to allocate its internal buffers. In certain scenarios, while iterating through disk sectors, it assumes the read size from the disk is always…
more
smaller than the allocated buffer size which is not guaranteed. A crafted filesystem image may lead to a heap-based buffer overflow resulting in critical data to be corrupted, resulting in the risk of 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
—
—
—
V5.2.1
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.
Secure development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
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.
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 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.
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.