Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-23319 is a high-severity Buffer Access with Incorrect Length Value (CWE-805) vulnerability in Nvidia Triton Inference Server. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 27% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
NVIDIA Triton Inference Server for Windows and Linux is affected by CVE-2025-23319, a vulnerability in the Python backend that permits an out-of-bounds write triggered by a crafted request. The flaw is tracked under CWE-805 and CWE-787 and carries a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1 reflecting network attack vector, high attack complexity, no required privileges or user interaction, and high impact on confidentiality, integrity, and availability.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can send a malicious request to the inference server and, if successful, obtain remote code execution, cause denial of service, tamper with data, or disclose sensitive information. The published EPSS score remains flat at 0.0178 with no material increase since disclosure.
Advisories and patch information are available from NVIDIA at https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5687 and from the NVD and CVE records linked in the references.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-23837
Vulnerability Data
NVIDIA Triton Inference Server for Windows and Linux contains a vulnerability in the Python backend, where an attacker could cause an out-of-bounds write by sending a request. A successful exploit of this vulnerability might lead to remote code execution, denial…
more
of service, data tampering, or information disclosure.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and static analysis) directly finds incorrect length values used in sequential buffer accesses.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require explicit bounds checking and correct length calculations when performing buffer operations.
Input validation rejects or corrects malformed length values supplied from external sources before they reach buffer operations.
Memory protection mechanisms limit the blast radius when an incorrect length value causes an out-of-bounds access.
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 incorrect-length buffer operations via safe APIs, reviews, and testing.
Vulnerability identification can discover buffer-length flaws but does not prevent their introduction.
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 can detect out-of-bounds accesses, but does not guarantee prevention.
Secure development life cycle mandates buffer-safety practices that directly prevent incorrect length values.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size validation, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture principles encourage bounds-checked APIs, yet leave concrete coding decisions to developers.
Secure coding explicitly requires correct buffer-length handling, eliminating CWE-805 when followed.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.