CVE-2025-27363
Memory Safety in Freetype ≤ 2.13.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-27363 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Freetype Freetype. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 2% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities 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-2025-27363 is an out-of-bounds write in FreeType 2.13.0 and earlier that occurs during parsing of font subglyph structures in TrueType GX and variable font files. The vulnerable code path assigns a signed short to an unsigned long, adds a constant, and wraps around to allocate an undersized heap buffer before writing up to six signed long values outside its bounds. The flaw is classified as CWE-787 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 8.1.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger the issue by supplying a crafted font file, achieving arbitrary code execution with no user interaction required. The attack complexity is rated high, yet the vulnerability may already have been exploited in the wild.
Public advisories published via Facebook Security and the OpenWall oss-security list confirm that versions newer than 2.13.0 are unaffected and direct users to upgrade. The associated EPSS score rose from low values to a peak of 0.79 before receding to its current level of 0.70, indicating that exploitation interest emerged after disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-6367
Vulnerability Data
An out of bounds write exists in FreeType versions 2.13.0 and below (newer versions of FreeType are not vulnerable) when attempting to parse font subglyph structures related to TrueType GX and variable font files. The vulnerable code assigns a signed…
more
short value to an unsigned long and then adds a static value causing it to wrap around and allocate too small of a heap buffer. The code then writes up to 6 signed long integers out of bounds relative to this buffer. This may result in arbitrary code execution. This vulnerability may have been exploited in the wild.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 06 May 2025
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.