CVE-2025-43359
Apple Macos 14.0 – 14.8
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-43359 is a critical-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability in Apple Macos. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).
Operationally, ranked in the top 45% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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.
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-2025-43359 is a logic issue in Apple's operating systems that was addressed through improved state management. The vulnerability causes a UDP server socket, intended to be bound to a local interface, to instead become bound to all interfaces, potentially exposing it network-wide. It affects iOS and iPadOS versions prior to 18.7 and 26, macOS Sequoia prior to 15.7, macOS Sonoma prior to 14.8, macOS Tahoe prior to 26, tvOS prior to 26, visionOS prior to 26, and watchOS prior to 26. The issue is tracked under CWE-670 and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity.
A remote network attacker with no privileges or user interaction required can exploit this vulnerability due to its low attack complexity. Successful exploitation allows high-impact disruption to confidentiality, integrity, and availability, stemming from the unintended socket binding that could enable broader access or manipulation of network services.
Apple's security advisories detail mitigations through patches released in the specified versions: iOS 18.7 and iPadOS 18.7, iOS 26 and iPadOS 26, macOS Sequoia 15.7, macOS Sonoma 14.8, macOS Tahoe 26, tvOS 26, visionOS 26, and watchOS 26. Further details are available in the vendor's support documents at https://support.apple.com/en-us/125108, https://support.apple.com/en-us/125109, https://support.apple.com/en-us/125110, https://support.apple.com/en-us/125111, and https://support.apple.com/en-us/125112. Security practitioners should prioritize updating affected devices to these versions.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-29300
Vulnerability Data
A logic issue was addressed with improved state management. This issue is fixed in iOS 18.7 and iPadOS 18.7, iOS 26 and iPadOS 26, macOS Sequoia 15.7, macOS Sonoma 14.8, macOS Tahoe 26, tvOS 26, visionOS 26, watchOS 26. A…
more
UDP server socket bound to a local interface may become bound to all interfaces.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V9.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation at post-design stages directly exercises control-flow paths and reveals mismatches between implemented and intended behavior.
Requiring a documented development process and supporting tools reduces the chance that incorrect control-flow logic is introduced in the first place.
Flaw identification and remediation processes can locate and correct control-flow errors once they manifest as incorrect runtime behavior.
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 incorrect control-flow implementations via reviews, testing, and static analysis.
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 and acceptance can detect paths that deviate from intended logic.
Secure development lifecycle processes can catch incorrect control-flow logic during design and code review.
Secure coding standards and reviews directly target flawed control-flow implementations.
Change-management gates may prevent deployment of flawed logic but do not address the coding defect itself.