Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-27830 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Artifex Ghostscript. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 20th 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-2025-27830 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) discovered in Artifex Ghostscript versions prior to 10.05.0. The flaw occurs during the serialization of DollarBlend in a font, specifically impacting the base/write_t1.c and psi/zfapi.c components.
The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H). A local attacker requires no privileges but must rely on user interaction, such as processing a maliciously crafted PostScript or PDF file with Ghostscript. Successful exploitation could grant high-impact unauthorized access, modification, or disruption of system resources.
Advisories and patches are detailed in the Ghostscript bug tracker at https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708241 and the Debian LTS announcement at https://lists.debian.org/debian-lts-announce/2025/04/msg00014.html, which address the issue in affected distributions. Mitigation involves upgrading to Ghostscript 10.05.0 or later.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-8092
Vulnerability Data
An issue was discovered in Artifex Ghostscript before 10.05.0. A buffer overflow occurs during serialization of DollarBlend in a font, for base/write_t1.c and psi/zfapi.c.
- 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.