CVE-2025-32366
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2025-32366 is a medium-severity Improper Handling of Length Parameter Inconsistency (CWE-130) vulnerability in Kernel (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 4.8 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 31th 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.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-9924
Vulnerability Data
In ConnMan through 1.44, parse_rr in dnsproxy.c has a memcpy length that depends on an RR RDLENGTH value, i.e., *rdlen=ntohs(rr->rdlen) and memcpy(response+offset,*end,*rdlen) without a check for whether the sum of *end and *rdlen exceeds max. Consequently, *rdlen may be larger…
more
than the amount of remaining packet data in the current state of parsing. Values of stack memory locations may be sent over the network in a response.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V3.5.5V4.2.1V4.2.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover length-parameter inconsistencies through targeted parsing tests.
Input validation enforces correct length-to-data consistency checks on parsed messages before processing.
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 enforce length validation and input sanitization during coding and review.
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 length-inconsistency vulnerabilities before deployment.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and length checks that directly address inconsistent length fields.
Application security requirements include explicit rules for handling message lengths and data structures.
Secure architecture principles require robust parsing and bounds checking to prevent length-related flaws.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit improper length handling and enforce defensive parsing practices.