Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-23145 is a high-severity NULL Pointer Dereference (CWE-476) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 42th 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.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-13100
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mptcp: fix NULL pointer in can_accept_new_subflow When testing valkey benchmark tool with MPTCP, the kernel panics in 'mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow' because subflow_req->msk is NULL. Call trace: mptcp_can_accept_new_subflow (./net/mptcp/subflow.c:63 (discriminator 4)) (P) subflow_syn_recv_sock…
more
(./net/mptcp/subflow.c:854) tcp_check_req (./net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c:863) tcp_v4_rcv (./net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c:2268) ip_protocol_deliver_rcu (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:207) ip_local_deliver_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:234) ip_local_deliver (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:254) ip_rcv_finish (./net/ipv4/ip_input.c:449) ... According to the debug log, the same req received two SYN-ACK in a very short time, very likely because the client retransmits the syn ack due to multiple reasons. Even if the packets are transmitted with a relevant time interval, they can be processed by the server on different CPUs concurrently). The 'subflow_req->msk' ownership is transferred to the subflow the first, and there will be a risk of a null pointer dereference here. This patch fixes this issue by moving the 'subflow_req->msk' under the `own_req == true` conditional. Note that the !msk check in subflow_hmac_valid() can be dropped, because the same check already exists under the own_req mpj branch where the code has been moved to.
- 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 static analysis) directly finds null-dereference bugs before deployment.
Documented development standards and tools can enforce null-safety rules and safe pointer usage.
Engineering principles can mandate defensive coding such as explicit null checks before dereference.
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 (static analysis, code review, safe coding standards) directly prevent NULL dereference bugs during development.
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 NULL dereference defects before release.
Secure SDLC mandates defensive coding practices that can prevent NULL dereferences.
Application security requirements can specify input validation and pointer-safety rules.
Secure architecture principles encourage defensive design that avoids unsafe pointer use.
Secure coding standards directly require NULL-pointer checks and safe dereference patterns.