CVE-2025-32415
Memory Safety in Xmlsoft Libxml2 ≤ 2.13.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-32415 is a low-severity Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input (CWE-1284) vulnerability in Xmlsoft Libxml2. Its CVSS base score is 2.9 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 46th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-11554
Vulnerability Data
In libxml2 before 2.13.8 and 2.14.x before 2.14.2, xmlSchemaIDCFillNodeTables in xmlschemas.c has a heap-based buffer under-read. To exploit this, a crafted XML document must be validated against an XML schema with certain identity constraints, or a crafted XML schema must…
more
be used.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V6.7.2V1.4.2V2.1.1V2.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
SI-10 requires validity checks on information inputs, directly stopping acceptance of malformed quantities before they can be used.
Secure engineering principles require bounds checking and memory-safe constructs that stop out-of-bounds reads from being introduced.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
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 proper quantity/length validation in input handling.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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 missing quantity validation but does not itself implement the control.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation for quantity fields, directly preventing CWE-1284.
Application security requirements explicitly call for validation of size/length inputs, mitigating CWE-1284.
Secure architecture principles encourage robust input handling but do not specifically address quantity validation.
Secure coding standards require explicit checks on numeric quantity inputs, fully addressing CWE-1284.