Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-22107 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 10th 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-16 (Memory Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-11175
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: sja1105: fix kasan out-of-bounds warning in sja1105_table_delete_entry() There are actually 2 problems: - deleting the last element doesn't require the memmove of elements [i + 1, end) over…
more
it. Actually, element i+1 is out of bounds. - The memmove itself should move size - i - 1 elements, because the last element is out of bounds. The out-of-bounds element still remains out of bounds after being accessed, so the problem is only that we touch it, not that it becomes in active use. But I suppose it can lead to issues if the out-of-bounds element is part of an unmapped page.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Rigorous developer testing with dynamic analysis tools such as KASAN directly detects the out-of-bounds memmove accesses in sja1105_table_delete_entry() before the flawed code is released.
Memory-protection safeguards can detect or block the illegal access to an unmapped page that the erroneous memmove would otherwise perform.
Integrity verification of kernel modules can flag unexpected memory-access behavior resulting from the bounds error at runtime.
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 such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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 includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.