CVE-2025-24326
Memory Safety in F5 Big-Ip Application Security Manager 15.1.0 – 15.1.10.6.0.11.6-ENG
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-24326 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in F5 Big-Ip Application Security Manager. Its CVSS base score is 8.9 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 33th 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.
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-2025-24326 affects the BIG-IP Advanced WAF/ASM Behavioral DoS (BADoS) TLS Signatures feature when configured. Undisclosed traffic can cause an increase in memory resource utilization, potentially leading to denial of service. The vulnerability, published on 2025-02-05, has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H) and is associated with CWE-787.
Remote, unauthenticated attackers with network access can exploit the vulnerability due to its low attack complexity and lack of required privileges or user interaction. Exploitation causes high-impact availability disruption through memory exhaustion, with no effects on confidentiality or integrity.
The F5 advisory at https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000140950 provides details on mitigations. Note that software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-3675
Vulnerability Data
When BIG-IP Advanced WAF/ASM Behavioral DoS (BADoS) TLS Signatures feature is configured, undisclosed traffic can case an increase in memory resource utilization. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.
- 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.