Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-11082

Memory Safety in Gnu Binutils 2.45

Public PoCMemory Safety
Published
27 September 2025
Modified
12 May 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 1.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:X
EPSS Score 0.0023 14th percentile
Risk Priority 15 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-11082 is a low-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Gnu Binutils. Its CVSS base score is 1.9 (Low).

Operationally, ranked at the 14th 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 SI-16 (Memory Protection) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A flaw has been found in GNU Binutils 2.45. Impacted is the function _bfd_elf_parse_eh_frame of the file bfd/elf-eh-frame.c of the component Linker. Executing manipulation can lead to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack is restricted to local execution. The exploit has…

more

been published and may be used. This patch is called ea1a0737c7692737a644af0486b71e4a392cbca8. A patch should be applied to remediate this issue. The code maintainer replied with "[f]ixed for 2.46".

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-1176Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-7545Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-11083Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-11495Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-5245Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-1180Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-1153Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-5244Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-1182Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-1179Same product: Gnu Binutils

Affected Assets

gnu
binutils
2.45

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-2 Flaw Remediation
  • SI-16 Memory Protection
  • CM-5 Access Restrictions for Change
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V17.3.2
  • V1.4.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Directly requires timely application of the published patch (ea1a0737) to eliminate the heap buffer overflow in _bfd_elf_parse_eh_frame before exploitation.

prevent

Mandates hardware or architectural memory protections (DEP, ASLR, etc.) that block successful exploitation of the CWE-122 heap overflow even if malicious ELF input reaches the linker.

prevent

Enforces access restrictions on modification of system binaries and build tools, limiting an attacker’s ability to replace or manipulate the vulnerable Binutils binary on the local system.

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.

PR.PS-06 full match
prevents

Secure-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.

ID.RA-08 partial match
prevents

Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.

PR.AT-02 partial match
prevents

Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.

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.

detects

Security testing in development catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.

prevents

Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.

prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.

none

Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.

References