Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-37858 is a medium-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 22th 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-14134
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fs/jfs: Prevent integer overflow in AG size calculation The JFS filesystem calculates allocation group (AG) size using 1 << l2agsize in dbExtendFS(). When l2agsize exceeds 31 (possible with >2TB aggregates…
more
on 32-bit systems), this 32-bit shift operation causes undefined behavior and improper AG sizing. On 32-bit architectures: - Left-shifting 1 by 32+ bits results in 0 due to integer overflow - This creates invalid AG sizes (0 or garbage values) in sbi->bmap->db_agsize - Subsequent block allocations would reference invalid AG structures - Could lead to: - Filesystem corruption during extend operations - Kernel crashes due to invalid memory accesses - Security vulnerabilities via malformed on-disk structures Fix by casting to s64 before shifting: bmp->db_agsize = (s64)1 << l2agsize; This ensures 64-bit arithmetic even on 32-bit architectures. The cast matches the data type of db_agsize (s64) and follows similar patterns in JFS block calculation code. Found by Linux Verification Center (linuxtesting.org) with SVACE.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.6
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.
Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.
Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.
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 use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.
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 integer overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.