CVE-2025-27918
Memory Safety in Anydesk ≤ 9.0.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-27918 is a critical-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Anydesk Anydesk. 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 40th 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — 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-2025-27918 is an integer overflow vulnerability (CWE-190) that leads to a heap-based buffer overflow in multiple AnyDesk client versions. It affects AnyDesk for Windows prior to 9.0.5, macOS prior to 9.0.1, Linux prior to 7.0.0, iOS prior to 7.1.2, and Android prior to 8.0.0. The flaw occurs when processing a malicious UDP packet containing an Identity user image in the Discovery feature or during connection establishment between clients, earning 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).
Any unauthenticated attacker on the network can exploit this remotely with low complexity and no user interaction by sending a crafted UDP packet to a vulnerable AnyDesk client. Successful exploitation enables arbitrary code execution with high confidentiality, integrity, and availability impacts, potentially allowing full remote control of the affected system.
Mitigation requires updating to the fixed versions: AnyDesk for Windows 9.0.5 or later, macOS 9.0.1 or later, Linux 7.0.0 or later, iOS 7.1.2 or later, and Android 8.0.0 or later. Details on patches are available in the AnyDesk Windows changelog at https://anydesk.com/en/changelog/windows, with additional technical analysis in the report at https://dspace.cvut.cz/bitstream/handle/10467/122721/F8-DP-2025-Krejsa-Vojtech-DP_Krejsa_Vojtech_2025.pdf.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-38150
Vulnerability Data
An issue was discovered in AnyDesk for Windows before 9.0.5, AnyDesk for macOS before 9.0.1, AnyDesk for Linux before 7.0.0, AnyDesk for iOS before 7.1.2, and AnyDesk for Android before 8.0.0. It has an integer overflow and resultant heap-based buffer…
more
overflow via a UDP packet during processing of an Identity user image within the Discovery feature, or when establishing a connection between any two clients.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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 SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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 can detect integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.