CVE-2025-22891
F5 Big-Ip Policy Enforcement Manager 15.1.0 – 15.1.10.6.0.11.6
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:L/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:XSummary
CVE-2025-22891 is a high-severity Missing Release of Resource after Effective Lifetime (CWE-772) vulnerability in F5 Big-Ip Policy Enforcement Manager. Its CVSS base score is 8.7 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 33th 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.
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-2025-22891 is a denial-of-service vulnerability in F5 BIG-IP systems, specifically affecting the Policy Enforcement Manager (PEM) Control Plane listener Virtual Server when configured with a Diameter Endpoint profile. Undisclosed traffic sent to this configuration causes the Virtual Server to stop processing new client connections while also triggering an increase in memory resource utilization. This issue is classified under CWE-772 (Failed to Release Resource) and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H). Note that software versions that have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) were not evaluated.
The vulnerability can be exploited remotely by any unauthenticated attacker with network access to the affected Virtual Server, requiring low complexity and no user interaction. By sending the undisclosed traffic, an attacker can achieve a denial-of-service condition, halting new client connections and causing excessive memory consumption on the BIG-IP system.
For mitigation details, including affected versions and patches, refer to the F5 security advisory at https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000139778.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-3038
Vulnerability Data
When BIG-IP PEM Control Plane listener Virtual Server is configured with Diameter Endpoint profile, undisclosed traffic can cause the Virtual Server to stop processing new client connections and an increase in memory resource utilization. Note: Software versions which have reached…
more
End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
- 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 can discover missing resource releases through dynamic analysis or stress testing.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate explicit resource-release patterns in code.
Resource-quota allocation limits the blast radius of an unreleased-resource exhaustion condition.
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.
Lifecycle management explicitly requires handling resources through end-of-life including release.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent missing resource-release defects during development.
Runtime monitoring may surface resource-exhaustion symptoms but does not address release logic.
Capacity monitoring can detect exhaustion caused by unreleased resources but does not prevent the root defect.
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.
Explicit information-deletion requirements directly address timely release of resources after use.
Secure-SDLC practices include resource-management reviews, yet the control covers the entire lifecycle, not just this weakness.
Secure-coding rules can mandate explicit resource-release patterns, but the control is broader than this single weakness.
Change-management processes may catch missing de-allocation during reviews, but the control itself does not target resource lifetime.
Configuration baselines can enforce resource limits or timeouts, indirectly reducing exposure to leaks.