CVE-2025-38418
Linux Kernel 5.13 – 5.15.186
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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-2025-38418 is a medium-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 5th 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-2025-22668
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: remoteproc: core: Release rproc->clean_table after rproc_attach() fails When rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED is attached to remote processor through rproc_attach(), if rproc_handle_resources() returns failure, then the clean table should be released, otherwise…
more
the following memory leak will occur. unreferenced object 0xffff000086a99800 (size 1024): comm "kworker/u12:3", pid 59, jiffies 4294893670 (age 121.140s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 00 00 00 00 00 80 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 ............ 00 00 00 00 00 00 08 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ............ backtrace: [<000000008bbe4ca8>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0x98/0x3fc [<000000003b8a272b>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x13c/0x230 [<000000007a507c51>] __kmalloc_node_track_caller+0x5c/0x260 [<0000000037818dae>] kmemdup+0x34/0x60 [<00000000610f7f57>] rproc_boot+0x35c/0x56c [<0000000065f8871a>] rproc_add+0x124/0x17c [<00000000497416ee>] imx_rproc_probe+0x4ec/0x5d4 [<000000003bcaa37d>] platform_probe+0x68/0xd8 [<00000000771577f9>] really_probe+0x110/0x27c [<00000000531fea59>] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x12c [<0000000080036a04>] driver_probe_device+0x3c/0x118 [<000000007e0bddcb>] __device_attach_driver+0xb8/0xf8 [<000000000cf1fa33>] bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xe4 [<000000001a53b53e>] __device_attach+0xfc/0x18c [<00000000d1a2a32c>] device_initial_probe+0x14/0x20 [<00000000d8f8b7ae>] bus_probe_device+0xb0/0xb4 unreferenced object 0xffff0000864c9690 (size 16):
- 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 (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.
Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.
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 enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.
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 unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.
Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.
Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.
Capacity management may detect memory exhaustion symptoms but does not prevent the coding flaw.