CVE-2025-38465
Linux Kernel 2.6.13 – 5.4.296
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-2025-38465 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 6th 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-2025-22676
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: netlink: Fix wraparounds of sk->sk_rmem_alloc. Netlink has this pattern in some places if (atomic_read(&sk->sk_rmem_alloc) > sk->sk_rcvbuf) atomic_add(skb->truesize, &sk->sk_rmem_alloc); , which has the same problem fixed by commit 5a465a0da13e ("udp: Fix…
more
multiple wraparounds of sk->sk_rmem_alloc."). For example, if we set INT_MAX to SO_RCVBUFFORCE, the condition is always false as the two operands are of int. Then, a single socket can eat as many skb as possible until OOM happens, and we can see multiple wraparounds of sk->sk_rmem_alloc. Let's fix it by using atomic_add_return() and comparing the two variables as unsigned int. Before: [root@fedora ~]# ss -f netlink Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:Port -1668710080 0 rtnl:nl_wraparound/293 * After: [root@fedora ~]# ss -f netlink Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:Port 2147483072 0 rtnl:nl_wraparound/290 * ^ `--- INT_MAX - 576
- 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.