CVE-2025-23150
Linux Kernel 4.4.234 – 4.5
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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-2025-23150 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
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-13093
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
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
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.
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.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect off-by-one errors before release.
Secure development life cycle includes requirements and reviews that can catch off-by-one errors.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and input validation to prevent off-by-one errors.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding practices that reduce off-by-one mistakes.
Secure coding directly addresses off-by-one errors through coding standards and peer review.