Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-29072 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Nethermind Juno. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 37th 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 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.
An integer overflow vulnerability exists in Nethermind Juno versions prior to 12.05 within the Sierra bytecode decompression logic of the cairo-lang-starknet-classes library. The flaw, tracked as CVE-2025-29072 and assigned CWE-190, permits remote attackers to submit a crafted Declare v2 or v3 transaction that triggers an infinite loop and sustained high CPU consumption, resulting in denial of service against Starknet full-node implementations. The issue carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.5 reflecting network-exploitable availability impact without authentication or user interaction.
Attackers can exploit the condition by sending a malicious transaction directly to any exposed Starknet node running an affected Juno release. Successful exploitation causes the node to enter a resource-exhaustion state, disrupting block processing and potentially partitioning the node from the network until manual intervention or restart occurs.
Public references indicate that the vulnerability was addressed in Juno commit 51074875941aa111c5dd2b41f2ec890a4a15b587, which updates the decompression routine to prevent the overflow. Starknet community guidance recommends that node operators upgrade to version 12.05 or later to restore normal operation.
The associated EPSS score has remained flat at 0.0168 with no material increase since disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-8645
Vulnerability Data
An integer overflow in Nethermind Juno before v.12.05 within the Sierra bytecode decompression logic within the "cairo-lang-starknet-classes" library could allow remote attackers to trigger an infinite loop (and high CPU usage) by submitting a malicious Declare v2/v3 transaction. This results…
more
in a denial-of-service condition for affected Starknet full-node implementations.
- 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.