Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/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-2025-23133 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 16th 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-2025-11170
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: wifi: ath11k: update channel list in reg notifier instead reg worker Currently when ath11k gets a new channel list, it will be processed according to the following steps: 1. update…
more
new channel list to cfg80211 and queue reg_work. 2. cfg80211 handles new channel list during reg_work. 3. update cfg80211's handled channel list to firmware by ath11k_reg_update_chan_list(). But ath11k will immediately execute step 3 after reg_work is just queued. Since step 2 is asynchronous, cfg80211 may not have completed handling the new channel list, which may leading to an out-of-bounds write error: BUG: KASAN: slab-out-of-bounds in ath11k_reg_update_chan_list Call Trace: ath11k_reg_update_chan_list+0xbfe/0xfe0 [ath11k] kfree+0x109/0x3a0 ath11k_regd_update+0x1cf/0x350 [ath11k] ath11k_regd_update_work+0x14/0x20 [ath11k] process_one_work+0xe35/0x14c0 Should ensure step 2 is completely done before executing step 3. Thus Wen raised patch[1]. When flag NL80211_REGDOM_SET_BY_DRIVER is set, cfg80211 will notify ath11k after step 2 is done. So enable the flag NL80211_REGDOM_SET_BY_DRIVER then cfg80211 will notify ath11k after step 2 is done. At this time, there will be no KASAN bug during the execution of the step 3. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/patch/20230201065313.27203-1-quic_wgong@quicinc.com/ Tested-on: WCN6855 hw2.0 PCI WLAN.HSP.1.1-03125-QCAHSPSWPL_V1_V2_SILICONZ_LITE-3
- 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.