Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/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-2025-39704 is a high-severity Uncontrolled Recursion (CWE-674) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 4th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SC-5 (Denial-of-service Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-31522
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: LoongArch: KVM: Fix stack protector issue in send_ipi_data() Function kvm_io_bus_read() is called in function send_ipi_data(), buffer size of parameter *val should be at least 8 bytes. Since some emulation functions…
more
like loongarch_ipi_readl() and kvm_eiointc_read() will write the buffer *val with 8 bytes signed extension regardless parameter len. Otherwise there will be buffer overflow issue when CONFIG_STACKPROTECTOR is enabled. The bug report is shown as follows: Kernel panic - not syncing: stack-protector: Kernel stack is corrupted in: send_ipi_data+0x194/0x1a0 [kvm] CPU: 11 UID: 107 PID: 2692 Comm: CPU 0/KVM Not tainted 6.17.0-rc1+ #102 PREEMPT(full) Stack : 9000000005901568 0000000000000000 9000000003af371c 900000013c68c000 900000013c68f850 900000013c68f858 0000000000000000 900000013c68f998 900000013c68f990 900000013c68f990 900000013c68f6c0 fffffffffffdb058 fffffffffffdb0e0 900000013c68f858 911e1d4d39cf0ec2 9000000105657a00 0000000000000001 fffffffffffffffe 0000000000000578 282049464555206e 6f73676e6f6f4c20 0000000000000001 00000000086b4000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 0000000000000000 9000000005709968 90000000058f9000 900000013c68fa68 900000013c68fab4 90000000029279f0 900000010153f940 900000010001f360 0000000000000000 9000000003af3734 000000004390000c 00000000000000b0 0000000000000004 0000000000000000 0000000000071c1d ... Call Trace: [<9000000003af3734>] show_stack+0x5c/0x180 [<9000000003aed168>] dump_stack_lvl+0x6c/0x9c [<9000000003ad0ab0>] vpanic+0x108/0x2c4 [<9000000003ad0ca8>] panic+0x3c/0x40 [<9000000004eb0a1c>] __stack_chk_fail+0x14/0x18 [<ffff8000023473f8>] send_ipi_data+0x190/0x1a0 [kvm] [<ffff8000023313e4>] __kvm_io_bus_write+0xa4/0xe8 [kvm] [<ffff80000233147c>] kvm_io_bus_write+0x54/0x90 [kvm] [<ffff80000233f9f8>] kvm_emu_iocsr+0x180/0x310 [kvm] [<ffff80000233fe08>] kvm_handle_gspr+0x280/0x478 [kvm] [<ffff8000023443e8>] kvm_handle_exit+0xc0/0x130 [kvm]
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation can reject or constrain data that would otherwise drive unbounded recursive calls.
DoS protection mechanisms limit the resource-exhaustion impact of uncontrolled recursion without eliminating the flaw.
System monitoring can observe anomalous resource consumption that signals runaway recursion after it begins.
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 coding errors such as missing recursion limits or termination conditions.
Runtime monitoring of compute resources can detect excessive consumption caused by uncontrolled recursion.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record uncontrolled recursion flaws before deployment.
Capacity monitoring and resource provisioning can absorb or limit the impact of runaway recursion.
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 excessive recursion via static analysis or fuzzing.
Secure development life cycle requires controls that prevent uncontrolled recursion through design and code review.
Application security requirements can mandate recursion limits or stack-depth checks.
Secure system architecture principles include resource-management and input-validation rules that limit recursion.
Secure coding standards directly prohibit or constrain recursive constructs that could exhaust stack or memory.
Capacity management includes monitoring and limits that mitigate resource exhaustion from runaway recursion.