CVE-2025-30509
Intel Quickassist Technology ≤ 2.6.0-0018
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-30509 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Intel Quickassist Technology. Its CVSS base score is 4.8 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 2th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and AC-3 (Access Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-93493
Vulnerability Data
Improper input validation for some Intel QuickAssist Technology software before version 2.6.0 within Ring 3: User Applications may allow an escalation of privilege. System software adversary with an authenticated user combined with a low complexity attack may enable data manipulation.…
more
This result may potentially occur via local access when attack requirements are not present without special internal knowledge and requires no user interaction. The potential vulnerability may impact the confidentiality (none), integrity (low) and availability (none) of the vulnerable system, resulting in subsequent system confidentiality (none), integrity (none) and availability (none) impacts.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation, filtering, and sanitization of all inputs to the QuickAssist user-space library, blocking the malformed data that triggers the privilege-escalation path.
Limits the privileges granted to the authenticated local user process, reducing the impact of any successful input-validation bypass to the low-integrity outcome described.
Enforces explicit access-control decisions on all Ring-3 operations, preventing unauthorized elevation even if the validation flaw is exercised.
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 and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.