Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-3947 is a high-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 24th 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-3947 is an Integer Underflow vulnerability (CWE-191) in the Control Data Access (CDA) component of Honeywell Experion PKS. It affects the products C300 PCNT02, C300 PCNT05, FIM4, FIM8, UOC, CN100, HCA, C300PM, and C200E in versions from 520.1 through 520.2 TCU9 and from 530 through 530 TCU3.
The vulnerability carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.2 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H), indicating it is exploitable remotely over the network with low complexity, no privileges, and no user interaction required. An attacker could exploit it to perform input data manipulation, resulting in improper integer data value checking during subtraction and potentially leading to a denial of service.
Honeywell advisories recommend updating to the latest versions, specifically Experion PKS 520.2 TCU9 HF1 and 530.1 TCU3 HF1, to mitigate the vulnerability. Additional details are available at https://process.honeywell.com/.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-21065
Vulnerability Data
The Honeywell Experion PKS contains an Integer Underflow vulnerability in the component Control Data Access (CDA). An attacker could potentially exploit this vulnerability, leading to Input Data Manipulation, which could result in improper integer data value checking during subtraction leading…
more
to a denial of service. Honeywell recommends updating to the most recent version of Honeywell Experion PKS:520.2 TCU9 HF1 and 530.1 TCU3 HF1. The affected Experion PKS products are C300 PCNT02, C300 PCNT05, FIM4, FIM8, UOC, CN100, HCA, C300PM, and C200E. The Experion PKS versions affected are from 520.1 through 520.2 TCU9 and from 530 through 530 TCU3.
- 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 static/dynamic analysis directly find integer underflow defects before code is released.
Security engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer underflow during subtraction.
Input validation can reject or sanitize values that would cause a subtraction to underflow the representable range.
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 integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.
Routine patching can remediate known underflow bugs once they are discovered in deployed software.
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 catches integer underflow defects before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer underflow.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid underflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.