Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/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:XSummary
CVE-2025-24956 is a medium-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Siemens Openv2G. Its CVSS base score is 6.9 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 32th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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-2025-24956 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) in the OpenV2G library, affecting all versions prior to V0.9.6. The flaw exists in the EXI parsing feature, which fails to perform a length check when parsing X509 serial numbers, enabling an attacker to trigger memory corruption. The vulnerability received a CVSS v3.1 base score of 6.2 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H) upon its publication on 2025-02-11.
A local attacker can exploit this vulnerability with low complexity and no user interaction or privileges required. Successful exploitation leads to memory corruption, resulting in a high impact on availability (such as denial of service) but no impact on confidentiality or integrity.
Mitigation information is provided in the Siemens CERT advisory at https://cert-portal.siemens.com/productcert/html/ssa-647005.html. The issue is addressed in OpenV2G version V0.9.6 and later.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-3988
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability has been identified in OpenV2G (All versions < V0.9.6). The OpenV2G EXI parsing feature is missing a length check when parsing X509 serial numbers. Thus, an attacker could introduce a buffer overflow that leads to memory corruption.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.