Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2025-48965 is a medium-severity Incorrect Behavior Order (CWE-696) vulnerability in Arm Mbed Tls. Its CVSS base score is 4.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 38th 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 RA-5 (Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-22031
Vulnerability Data
Mbed TLS before 3.6.4 has a NULL pointer dereference because mbedtls_asn1_store_named_data can trigger conflicting data with val.p of NULL but val.len greater than zero.
- 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 evaluation at post-design stages can discover incorrect ordering of related behaviors before deployment.
Vulnerability scanning may surface order-related weaknesses after code is built but does not address their root cause.
Mandating a documented development process and standards enforces review of behavior ordering within the software lifecycle.
Security and privacy engineering principles applied during design and implementation directly require correct sequencing of operations to avoid introducing order-dependent flaws.
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 enforce correct sequencing of security-relevant operations during design and coding.
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 can detect ordering flaws but does not prevent them during development.
Secure development life cycle mandates correct sequencing of security activities, directly preventing incorrect behavior order.
Application security requirements can specify input validation and pointer-safety rules.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require proper ordering of design and implementation steps.
Secure coding standards enforce correct execution order of security-critical operations.
Change management may catch order-related issues during reviews but does not address root cause.