Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:A/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2025-34128 is a high-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Githubusercontent (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.6 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 45% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
A buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the X360 VideoPlayer ActiveX control (VideoPlayer.ocx) version 2.6 when handling overly long arguments to the ConvertFile() method. The flaw, tracked as CVE-2025-34128 and associated with CWE-94 and CWE-120, permits memory corruption that can result in arbitrary code execution inside the affected process. It carries a CVSS 4.0 score of 8.6 reflecting a network vector, low attack complexity, and no required privileges.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can trigger the issue by supplying specially crafted input to the vulnerable method, typically through a web page that instantiates the ActiveX control. Successful exploitation grants code execution in the security context of the hosting process, with the CVSS metrics indicating that user interaction is required to reach the vulnerable code path.
Public exploit modules and proof-of-concept code have been published, including a Metasploit module and multiple Exploit-DB entries, while an EPSS score of 0.7039 indicates substantial exploitation interest. A Fortiguard IPS signature (40167) has also been issued for detection.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-21743
Vulnerability Data
A buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the X360 VideoPlayer ActiveX control (VideoPlayer.ocx) version 2.6 when handling overly long arguments to the ConvertFile() method. An attacker can exploit this vulnerability by supplying crafted input to cause memory corruption and execute arbitrary…
more
code within the context of the current process.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1V1.3.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.
Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.
Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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.
PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.
Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.