Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-37991 is a high-severity Double Free (CWE-415) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 9th 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-2025-15863
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: parisc: Fix double SIGFPE crash Camm noticed that on parisc a SIGFPE exception will crash an application with a second SIGFPE in the signal handler. Dave analyzed it, and it…
more
happens because glibc uses a double-word floating-point store to atomically update function descriptors. As a result of lazy binding, we hit a floating-point store in fpe_func almost immediately. When the T bit is set, an assist exception trap occurs when when the co-processor encounters *any* floating-point instruction except for a double store of register %fr0. The latter cancels all pending traps. Let's fix this by clearing the Trap (T) bit in the FP status register before returning to the signal handler in userspace. The issue can be reproduced with this test program: root@parisc:~# cat fpe.c static void fpe_func(int sig, siginfo_t *i, void *v) { sigset_t set; sigemptyset(&set); sigaddset(&set, SIGFPE); sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &set, NULL); printf("GOT signal %d with si_code %ld\n", sig, i->si_code); } int main() { struct sigaction action = { .sa_sigaction = fpe_func, .sa_flags = SA_RESTART|SA_SIGINFO }; sigaction(SIGFPE, &action, 0); feenableexcept(FE_OVERFLOW); return printf("%lf\n",1.7976931348623158E308*1.7976931348623158E308); } root@parisc:~# gcc fpe.c -lm root@parisc:~# ./a.out Floating point exception root@parisc:~# strace -f ./a.out execve("./a.out", ["./a.out"], 0xf9ac7034 /* 20 vars */) = 0 getrlimit(RLIMIT_STACK, {rlim_cur=8192*1024, rlim_max=RLIM_INFINITY}) = 0 ... rt_sigaction(SIGFPE, {sa_handler=0x1110a, sa_mask=[], sa_flags=SA_RESTART|SA_SIGINFO}, NULL, 8) = 0 --- SIGFPE {si_signo=SIGFPE, si_code=FPE_FLTOVF, si_addr=0x1078f} --- --- SIGFPE {si_signo=SIGFPE, si_code=FPE_FLTOVF, si_addr=0xf8f21237} --- +++ killed by SIGFPE +++ Floating point exception
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation explicitly includes dynamic analysis and fuzzing that locate double-free defects before release.
Security engineering principles can require memory-safe allocation patterns or language features that structurally eliminate double-free opportunities.
Flaw remediation processes require identification and correction of memory-management defects such as double free once discovered.
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 prevent double-free errors via static analysis, safe memory APIs, and testing.
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 double-free conditions before release.
Secure development life cycle includes memory-safety practices that can prevent double-free bugs.
Application security requirements can mandate memory-safety rules that reduce double-free risk.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles can prescribe safe memory-management patterns.
Secure coding standards directly address proper use of free() and similar functions.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248590 OL 8 must clear the page allocator to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-415