CVE-2025-3549
Memory Safety in Assimp 5.4.3
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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-2025-3549 is a low-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Assimp Assimp. Its CVSS base score is 1.9 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 18th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-16 (Memory Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-10860
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Open Asset Import Library Assimp 5.4.3. Affected is the function Assimp::MD3Importer::ValidateSurfaceHeaderOffsets of the file code/AssetLib/MD3/MD3Loader.cpp of the component File Handler. The manipulation leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack needs…
more
to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI
Why these techniques?
Heap-based buffer overflow in Assimp's MD3 file parser allows exploitation via malformed files for code execution in client applications (T1203) or application crashes causing endpoint denial of service (T1499.004).
MITRE ATLAS TechniquesAI
MITRE ATLAS techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
V17.3.2V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of all input (here the MD3 surface-header fields) to reject malformed data before it reaches the vulnerable Assimp::MD3Importer::ValidateSurfaceHeaderOffsets parser.
Enforces memory-protection mechanisms (ASLR, NX, guard pages) that make successful exploitation of the resulting heap buffer overflow far more difficult.
Requires cryptographic or integrity verification of input files before they are processed by Assimp, blocking or alerting on the malicious MD3 file.
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-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
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 catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.
Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.