Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-52870 is a low-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Qnap Qsync Central. Its CVSS base score is 0.6 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 31th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — 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-2025-52870 is a buffer overflow vulnerability (CWE-120, CWE-122) affecting Qsync Central, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H). Published on 2026-02-11, the flaw allows unauthorized memory manipulation or process crashes when exploited.
A remote attacker who has obtained a user account (PR:L) can exploit the vulnerability over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L) and no user interaction (UI:N). Successful exploitation enables modification of memory, compromising integrity (I:H), or crashing processes, disrupting availability (A:H), while maintaining an unchanged scope (S:U) and no confidentiality impact (C:N).
QNAP's security advisory (QSA-26-02) confirms the vulnerability has been fixed in Qsync Central version 5.0.0.4, released on 2026/01/20, and all later versions. Security practitioners should update affected systems immediately; details are available at https://www.qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-26-02.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206912
Vulnerability Data
A buffer overflow vulnerability has been reported to affect Qsync Central. If a remote attacker gains a user account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to modify memory or crash processes. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following…
more
version: Qsync Central 5.0.0.4 ( 2026/01/20 ) and later
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V5.2.1V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap 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.
Change management ensures controlled deployment of fixes for discovered heap-overflow vulnerabilities.