CVE-2025-38419
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-2025-38419 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-2025-22667
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: remoteproc: core: Cleanup acquired resources when rproc_handle_resources() fails in rproc_attach() When rproc->state = RPROC_DETACHED and rproc_attach() is used to attach to the remote processor, if rproc_handle_resources() returns a failure, the…
more
resources allocated by imx_rproc_prepare() should be released, otherwise the following memory leak will occur. Since almost the same thing is done in imx_rproc_prepare() and rproc_resource_cleanup(), Function rproc_resource_cleanup() is able to deal with empty lists so it is better to fix the "goto" statements in rproc_attach(). replace the "unprepare_device" goto statement with "clean_up_resources" and get rid of the "unprepare_device" label. unreferenced object 0xffff0000861c5d00 (size 128): comm "kworker/u12:3", pid 59, jiffies 4294893509 (age 149.220s) hex dump (first 32 bytes): 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ 00 00 02 88 00 00 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 ............ backtrace: [<00000000f949fe18>] slab_post_alloc_hook+0x98/0x37c [<00000000adbfb3e7>] __kmem_cache_alloc_node+0x138/0x2e0 [<00000000521c0345>] kmalloc_trace+0x40/0x158 [<000000004e330a49>] rproc_mem_entry_init+0x60/0xf8 [<000000002815755e>] imx_rproc_prepare+0xe0/0x180 [<0000000003f61b4e>] rproc_boot+0x2ec/0x528 [<00000000e7e994ac>] rproc_add+0x124/0x17c [<0000000048594076>] imx_rproc_probe+0x4ec/0x5d4 [<00000000efc298a1>] platform_probe+0x68/0xd8 [<00000000110be6fe>] really_probe+0x110/0x27c [<00000000e245c0ae>] __driver_probe_device+0x78/0x12c [<00000000f61f6f5e>] driver_probe_device+0x3c/0x118 [<00000000a7874938>] __device_attach_driver+0xb8/0xf8 [<0000000065319e69>] bus_for_each_drv+0x84/0xe4 [<00000000db3eb243>] __device_attach+0xfc/0x18c [<0000000072e4e1a4>] device_initial_probe+0x14/0x20
- 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.