Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-21914 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. 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 11th 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.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-9407
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: slimbus: messaging: Free transaction ID in delayed interrupt scenario In case of interrupt delay for any reason, slim_do_transfer() returns timeout error but the transaction ID (TID) is not freed. This…
more
results into invalid memory access inside qcom_slim_ngd_rx_msgq_cb() due to invalid TID. Fix the issue by freeing the TID in slim_do_transfer() before returning timeout error to avoid invalid memory access. Call trace: __memcpy_fromio+0x20/0x190 qcom_slim_ngd_rx_msgq_cb+0x130/0x290 [slim_qcom_ngd_ctrl] vchan_complete+0x2a0/0x4a0 tasklet_action_common+0x274/0x700 tasklet_action+0x28/0x3c _stext+0x188/0x620 run_ksoftirqd+0x34/0x74 smpboot_thread_fn+0x1d8/0x464 kthread+0x178/0x238 ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20 Code: aa0003e8 91000429 f100044a 3940002b (3800150b) ---[ end trace 0fe00bec2b975c99 ]--- Kernel panic - not syncing: Oops: Fatal exception in interrupt.
- 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.