CVE-2025-25567
Memory Safety in Softether Vpn 5.02.5187
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-25567 is a critical-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Softether Vpn. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 45th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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.
SoftEther VPN version 5.02.5187 is affected by CVE-2025-25567, a buffer overflow vulnerability in the Internat.c component via the UniToStrForSingleChars function. This issue corresponds to CWE-120 (Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')) and 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), marking it as critical.
The vulnerability could theoretically enable remote attackers requiring no privileges or user interaction to compromise confidentiality, integrity, and availability with high impact. However, the supplier disputes this characterization, noting that the behavior only allows a local user to attack themselves through the user interface.
Advisories and additional details are available in the supplier's response at https://filecenter.softether-upload.com/d/250715_001_79538/CVE-2025-25567.pdf and the researcher's page at https://lzydry.github.io/CVE-2025-25567/.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-6775
Vulnerability Data
SoftEther VPN 5.02.5187 is vulnerable to Buffer Overflow in Internat.c via the UniToStrForSingleChars function. NOTE: the Supplier disputes this because the behavior only enables a local user to attack himself through the UI,
- 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.