Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-38298 is a high-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-20950
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: EDAC/skx_common: Fix general protection fault After loading i10nm_edac (which automatically loads skx_edac_common), if unload only i10nm_edac, then reload it and perform error injection testing, a general protection fault may occur:…
more
mce: [Hardware Error]: Machine check events logged Oops: general protection fault ... ... Workqueue: events mce_gen_pool_process RIP: 0010:string+0x53/0xe0 ... Call Trace: <TASK> ? die_addr+0x37/0x90 ? exc_general_protection+0x1e7/0x3f0 ? asm_exc_general_protection+0x26/0x30 ? string+0x53/0xe0 vsnprintf+0x23e/0x4c0 snprintf+0x4d/0x70 skx_adxl_decode+0x16a/0x330 [skx_edac_common] skx_mce_check_error.part.0+0xf8/0x220 [skx_edac_common] skx_mce_check_error+0x17/0x20 [skx_edac_common] ... The issue arose was because the variable 'adxl_component_count' (inside skx_edac_common), which counts the ADXL components, was not reset. During the reloading of i10nm_edac, the count was incremented by the actual number of ADXL components again, resulting in a count that was double the real number of ADXL components. This led to an out-of-bounds reference to the ADXL component array, causing the general protection fault above. Fix this issue by resetting the 'adxl_component_count' in adxl_put(), which is called during the unloading of {skx,i10nm}_edac.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and acceptance can detect and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.