Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-23150

Linux Kernel 4.4.234 – 4.5

Published
01 May 2025
Modified
30 July 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0021 11th percentile
Risk Priority 55 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2025-23150 is a high-severity Off-by-one Error (CWE-193) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 11th 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

Vulnerability Data

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: ext4: fix off-by-one error in do_split Syzkaller detected a use-after-free issue in ext4_insert_dentry that was caused by out-of-bounds access due to incorrect splitting in do_split. BUG: KASAN: use-after-free in ext4_insert_dentry+0x36a/0x6d0…

more

fs/ext4/namei.c:2109 Write of size 251 at addr ffff888074572f14 by task syz-executor335/5847 CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 5847 Comm: syz-executor335 Not tainted 6.12.0-rc6-syzkaller-00318-ga9cda7c0ffed #0 Hardware name: Google Google Compute Engine/Google Compute Engine, BIOS Google 10/30/2024 Call Trace: <TASK> __dump_stack lib/dump_stack.c:94 [inline] dump_stack_lvl+0x241/0x360 lib/dump_stack.c:120 print_address_description mm/kasan/report.c:377 [inline] print_report+0x169/0x550 mm/kasan/report.c:488 kasan_report+0x143/0x180 mm/kasan/report.c:601 kasan_check_range+0x282/0x290 mm/kasan/generic.c:189 __asan_memcpy+0x40/0x70 mm/kasan/shadow.c:106 ext4_insert_dentry+0x36a/0x6d0 fs/ext4/namei.c:2109 add_dirent_to_buf+0x3d9/0x750 fs/ext4/namei.c:2154 make_indexed_dir+0xf98/0x1600 fs/ext4/namei.c:2351 ext4_add_entry+0x222a/0x25d0 fs/ext4/namei.c:2455 ext4_add_nondir+0x8d/0x290 fs/ext4/namei.c:2796 ext4_symlink+0x920/0xb50 fs/ext4/namei.c:3431 vfs_symlink+0x137/0x2e0 fs/namei.c:4615 do_symlinkat+0x222/0x3a0 fs/namei.c:4641 __do_sys_symlink fs/namei.c:4662 [inline] __se_sys_symlink fs/namei.c:4660 [inline] __x64_sys_symlink+0x7a/0x90 fs/namei.c:4660 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xf3/0x230 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x77/0x7f </TASK> The following loop is located right above 'if' statement. for (i = count-1; i >= 0; i--) { /* is more than half of this entry in 2nd half of the block? */ if (size + map[i].size/2 > blocksize/2) break; size += map[i].size; move++; } 'i' in this case could go down to -1, in which case sum of active entries wouldn't exceed half the block size, but previous behaviour would also do split in half if sum would exceed at the very last block, which in case of having too many long name files in a single block could lead to out-of-bounds access and following use-after-free. Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with Syzkaller.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
T1212 Exploitation for Credential Access Credential Access
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to collect credentials.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-36957Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-26766Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-46852Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2025-38236Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-39494Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-52927Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2025-38350Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-35823Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2025-38212Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-35854Same product: Debian Debian Linux

Affected Assets

linux
linux kernel
5.9, 6.15 · 4.4.234 — 4.5 · 4.9.234 — 4.10 · 4.14.195 — 4.15
debian
debian linux
11.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

—

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

—

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

—

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V6.2.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation can discover off-by-one errors in loops, bounds, and calculations before deployment.

Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed bounds-checking and arithmetic-correctness rules that stop off-by-one mistakes at introduction.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly prevent off-by-one errors via reviews, static analysis, 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.

finds

Security testing in development and acceptance can detect off-by-one errors before release.

prevents

Secure development life cycle includes requirements and reviews that can catch off-by-one errors.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and input validation to prevent off-by-one errors.

prevents

Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding practices that reduce off-by-one mistakes.

prevents

Secure coding directly addresses off-by-one errors through coding standards and peer review.

References