CVE-2025-24851
Intel Ethernet Controller ≤ 30.3
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-24851 is a medium-severity Uncaught Exception (CWE-248) vulnerability in Intel Ethernet Controller. Its CVSS base score is 6.7 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 2th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-207268
Vulnerability Data
Uncaught exception in the firmware for some 100GbE Intel(R) Ethernet Controller E810 before version cvl fw 1.7.8.x within Ring 0: Bare Metal OS may allow a denial of service. System software adversary with a privileged user combined with a low…
more
complexity attack may enable denial of service. This result may potentially occur via local access when attack requirements are not present without special internal knowledge and requires no user interaction. The potential vulnerability may impact the confidentiality (none), integrity (none) and availability (high) of the vulnerable system, resulting in subsequent system confidentiality (none), integrity (none) and availability (none) impacts.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Security engineering principles include robust exception management to keep the system in a defined state.
Fail-in-known-state reduces the impact when an uncaught exception occurs by preserving a safe condition.
Error handling requirements force structured catching and response to exceptions instead of allowing them to propagate uncaught.
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 explicitly require structured exception handling to prevent uncaught exceptions from reaching production.
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 can detect uncaught exceptions before production deployment.
Secure development lifecycle includes exception-handling standards that reduce uncaught exceptions.
Application security requirements typically mandate robust error and exception handling.
Secure architecture principles call for centralized, comprehensive exception management.
Secure coding standards directly require catching and handling exceptions to prevent crashes or leaks.