Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-39928 is a high-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability in Linux Linux Kernel. Its CVSS base score is 7.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 2th 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.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-32874
Vulnerability Data
In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: i2c: rtl9300: ensure data length is within supported range Add an explicit check for the xfer length to 'rtl9300_i2c_config_xfer' to ensure the data length isn't within the supported range. In…
more
particular a data length of 0 is not supported by the hardware and causes unintended or destructive behaviour. This limitation becomes obvious when looking at the register documentation [1]. 4 bits are reserved for DATA_WIDTH and the value of these 4 bits is used as N + 1, allowing a data length range of 1 <= len <= 16. Affected by this is the SMBus Quick Operation which works with a data length of 0. Passing 0 as the length causes an underflow of the value due to: (len - 1) & 0xf and effectively specifying a transfer length of 16 via the registers. This causes a 16-byte write operation instead of a Quick Write. For example, on SFP modules without write-protected EEPROM this soft-bricks them by overwriting some initial bytes. For completeness, also add a quirk for the zero length. [1] https://svanheule.net/realtek/longan/register/i2c_mst1_ctrl2
- 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.