CVE-2025-22834
Ami Aptio V 5.0 – 5.040
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-22834 is a medium-severity Improper Initialization (CWE-665) vulnerability in Ami Aptio V. Its CVSS base score is 4.2 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 2th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-24262
Vulnerability Data
AMI APTIOV contains a vulnerability in BIOS where a user may cause “Improper Initialization” by local accessing. Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may leave the resource in an unexpected state and potentially impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly exercises initialization paths and can reveal missing or incorrect resource setup.
Engineering principles applied during design and implementation can require explicit initialization to a known state.
Requiring the system to fail to a known state structurally reduces the chance that uninitialized resources remain reachable.
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 directly enforce proper resource initialization during coding and testing.
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 can detect uninitialized variables but does not itself enforce initialization practices.
Configuration management can enforce secure defaults and initialization settings but is not the primary control for code-level initialization.
Secure development life cycle mandates initialization checks and secure defaults that directly prevent improper resource initialization.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require explicit initialization of resources and secure state management.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid uninitialized variables and mandate proper resource initialization before use.