Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-25530 is a critical-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability. 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 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-2025-25530 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) in Digital China DCBI-Netlog-LAB Gateway version 1.0. The flaw stems from a lack of length verification when saving parental control configuration information, resulting in a critical CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). Published on 2025-02-11, it affects the gateway device's handling of configuration data.
Unauthenticated attackers can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network with low complexity and no user interaction. Successful exploitation enables denial-of-service by crashing the target device or executing arbitrary commands, granting high-impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability compromises.
Mitigation guidance and additional details are available in the referenced advisory at https://gist.github.com/XiaoCurry/570a765f6812b8c53d35f623ee701b19.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-4128
Vulnerability Data
Buffer overflow vulnerability in Digital China DCBI-Netlog-LAB Gateway 1.0 due to the lack of length verification, which is related to saving parental control configuration information. Attackers who successfully exploit this vulnerability can cause the remote target device to crash or…
more
execute arbitrary commands.
- 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.