Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/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-2025-24273 is a critical-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Apple Macos. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 43% 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.
CVE-2025-24273 is an out-of-bounds write vulnerability (CWE-787) affecting Apple's macOS operating system. The issue, addressed through improved bounds checking, impacts macOS Sequoia versions prior to 15.4, macOS Sonoma prior to 14.7.5, and macOS Ventura prior to 13.7.5. It carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity due to its potential for high-impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability consequences.
A remote attacker with no privileges or user interaction can exploit this vulnerability over the network with low complexity. Exploitation allows an app to cause unexpected system termination, effectively enabling denial-of-service, or to corrupt kernel memory, which could facilitate further privilege escalation or persistent system compromise.
Apple's security advisories detail the fix via improved bounds checking in the specified macOS updates (https://support.apple.com/en-us/122373, https://support.apple.com/en-us/122374, https://support.apple.com/en-us/122375). Additional details appear in full disclosure postings (http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/10, http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2025/Apr/8). Security practitioners should prioritize patching affected systems to mitigate risks.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-8936
Vulnerability Data
An out-of-bounds write issue was addressed with improved bounds checking. This issue is fixed in macOS Sequoia 15.4, macOS Sonoma 14.7.5, macOS Ventura 13.7.5. An app may be able to cause unexpected system termination or corrupt kernel memory.
- 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.