Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-39727 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-16 (Memory Protection) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-31502
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: mm: swap: fix potential buffer overflow in setup_clusters() In setup_swap_map(), we only ensure badpages are in range (0, last_page]. As maxpages might be < last_page, setup_clusters() will encounter a buffer…
more
overflow when a badpage is >= maxpages. Only call inc_cluster_info_page() for badpage which is < maxpages to fix the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Directly requires validation of all input parameters (badpage vs. maxpages) before use in setup_clusters(), eliminating the unchecked buffer access.
Enforces memory bounds checking and protection mechanisms that would block or contain the overflow when a badpage >= maxpages is processed.
Mandates timely application of the kernel patch that adds the missing maxpages check in setup_swap_map() and setup_clusters().
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 development practices directly enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.