Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-1430 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Autodesk Autocad. 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 14th 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-2025-1430 is a memory corruption vulnerability (CWE-120, CWE-787) affecting Autodesk AutoCAD when parsing a maliciously crafted SLDPRT file. Published on 2025-03-13 with 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), it allows a malicious actor to trigger the issue during file processing, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution in the context of the AutoCAD process.
The vulnerability requires local access to the target system with low attack complexity but demands user interaction, such as convincing a user to open the malicious SLDPRT file in AutoCAD. No privileges are needed beforehand. Successful exploitation enables the attacker to execute arbitrary code with the privileges of the current user running AutoCAD, potentially compromising the system through high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
Autodesk has published security advisory ADSK-SA-2025-0001 addressing this issue, with updates available for AutoCAD and AutoCAD LT. Users can download the latest updates from Autodesk's support pages, such as those for AutoCAD 2022, via Autodesk Access.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-6380
Vulnerability Data
A maliciously crafted SLDPRT file, when parsed through Autodesk AutoCAD, can force a Memory Corruption vulnerability. A malicious actor can leverage this vulnerability to execute arbitrary code in the context of the current process.
- 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.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
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.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.