Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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:XSummary
CVE-2025-1179 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 2.3 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Process Injection (T1055); ranked at the 43th 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) 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-2025-1179 is a critical vulnerability in GNU Binutils version 2.43 that affects the bfd_putl64 function in the file bfd/libbfd.c within the ld component. The issue results in memory corruption, mapped to CWE-119, and has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.0 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L).
The vulnerability enables remote attacks over the network by unauthenticated attackers requiring no privileges, though exploitation demands high complexity and user interaction. Successful exploitation achieves low-level impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. While exploitation is considered difficult, an exploit has been publicly disclosed and may be used.
Advisories recommend upgrading to GNU Binutils version 2.44 to mitigate the issue, as the bug was fixed at some point between the 2.43 and 2.44 releases, according to the code maintainer. Details are available in Sourceware Bugzilla entries, including bug report 32640 and attachment 15915, along with VulDB references.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-2053
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability was found in GNU Binutils 2.43. It has been rated as critical. Affected by this issue is the function bfd_putl64 of the file bfd/libbfd.c of the component ld. The manipulation leads to memory corruption. The attack may be…
more
launched remotely. The complexity of an attack is rather high. The exploitation is known to be difficult. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. Upgrading to version 2.44 is able to address this issue. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component. The code maintainer explains, that "[t]his bug has been fixed at some point between the 2.43 and 2.44 releases".
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
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 (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
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.
Security testing in development catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.