Raw vector
CVSS: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: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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-1365 is a medium-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Elfutils Project Elfutils. Its CVSS base score is 4.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 26th 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-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-2025-1365 is a critical buffer overflow vulnerability in GNU elfutils version 0.192. It affects the process_symtab function in the file readelf.c within the eu-readelf component, triggered by manipulation of the D/a argument. The issue is associated with CWE-119 and CWE-120.
Local access is required for exploitation, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.3 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L). A low-privileged local attacker can trigger the buffer overflow, achieving limited impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability. The exploit has been publicly disclosed.
A patch is available with commit identifier 5e5c0394d82c53e97750fe7b18023e6f84157b81, and applying it is recommended to fix the issue. Details, including the patch attachment, are documented in Sourceware Bugzilla bug 32654 and related entries.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-2123
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in GNU elfutils 0.192. This affects the function process_symtab of the file readelf.c of the component eu-readelf. The manipulation of the argument D/a leads to buffer overflow. Local access is required…
more
to approach this attack. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The identifier of the patch is 5e5c0394d82c53e97750fe7b18023e6f84157b81. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2V5.2.1
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.
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
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.