Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-27833 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 13th 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-2025-27833 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120) discovered in Artifex Ghostscript versions before 10.05.0. The flaw occurs in the pdf/pdf_fmap.c component when processing a long TTF font name, potentially leading to memory corruption. This affects systems or applications that use vulnerable Ghostscript installations for PDF or PostScript processing.
Exploitation requires local access (AV:L) with low attack complexity (AC:L) and no privileges (PR:N), but relies on user interaction (UI:R), such as opening a malicious PDF file with Ghostscript. A successful attack can achieve high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability (C:H/I:H/A:H), earning a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.8. Local attackers could leverage this to execute arbitrary code or cause denial of service on the affected system.
The primary advisory reference is the Ghostscript bug tracker at https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708259. Mitigation involves upgrading to Ghostscript 10.05.0 or later, where the issue is addressed.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-8094
Vulnerability Data
An issue was discovered in Artifex Ghostscript before 10.05.0. A buffer overflow occurs for a long TTF font name to pdf/pdf_fmap.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.