Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-1125 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) 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 35th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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-2025-1125 affects GRUB's HFS filesystem module, where user-controlled parameters from HFS filesystem metadata are used to calculate internal buffer sizes without proper integer overflow checks. A maliciously crafted HFS filesystem can trigger overflows in these calculations, resulting in a grub_malloc() allocation smaller than expected. This leads to a buffer overflow in the hfsplus_open_compressed_real() function, corrupting GRUB's internal critical data structures.
The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and is associated with CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write). Exploitation requires local access with low complexity and no privileges, but user interaction is needed, such as tricking a user into loading or booting from a malicious HFS filesystem image via GRUB. Successful exploitation can enable arbitrary code execution, bypassing Secure Boot protections.
Advisories and discussions on mitigation are provided by Red Hat at https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2025-1125, Red Hat Bugzilla at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2346138, and the GRUB development mailing list at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2025-02/msg00024.html.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-5597
Vulnerability Data
When reading data from a hfs filesystem, grub's hfs filesystem module uses user-controlled parameters from the filesystem metadata to calculate the internal buffers size, however it misses to properly check for integer overflows. A maliciouly crafted filesystem may lead some…
more
of those buffer size calculation to overflow, causing it to perform a grub_malloc() operation with a smaller size than expected. As a result the hfsplus_open_compressed_real() function will write past of the internal buffer length. 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
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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.