Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-37885 is a high-severity Use After Free (CWE-416) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 18th 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 SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) and SI-16 (Memory Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-14105
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: KVM: x86: Reset IRTE to host control if *new* route isn't postable Restore an IRTE back to host control (remapped or posted MSI mode) if the *new* GSI route prevents…
more
posting the IRQ directly to a vCPU, regardless of the GSI routing type. Updating the IRTE if and only if the new GSI is an MSI results in KVM leaving an IRTE posting to a vCPU. The dangling IRTE can result in interrupts being incorrectly delivered to the guest, and in the worst case scenario can result in use-after-free, e.g. if the VM is torn down, but the underlying host IRQ isn't freed.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Applying the KVM x86 patch that resets IRTE state for non-postable routes directly eliminates the dangling-IRTE condition described in the CVE.
Memory-protection mechanisms can block or contain the use-after-free that occurs when a torn-down VM leaves an IRTE still posting to freed guest structures.
Continuous monitoring of interrupt delivery and IRTE mappings can identify anomalous guest IRQ deliveries caused by an incorrectly retained posted-IRTE.
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 incorporate memory-safety tooling and reviews that prevent most use-after-free defects.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover use-after-free issues via scanning or analysis but do not prevent their introduction.
Routine patching removes known use-after-free instances after they have been introduced in released software.
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 use-after-free bugs before release.
Secure SDLC mandates memory-safety practices that reduce use-after-free defects.
Application security requirements can specify memory-management rules that mitigate use-after-free.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety design choices that limit use-after-free exposure.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe avoidance of use-after-free patterns.
Change-management processes help ensure memory-safety fixes are deployed consistently.