Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2025-57812 is a low-severity Out-of-bounds Read (CWE-125) vulnerability in Openprinting Cups-Filters. Its CVSS base score is 3.7 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 37th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
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.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-150402
Vulnerability Data
CUPS is a standards-based, open-source printing system, and `libcupsfilters` contains the code of the filters of the former `cups-filters` package as library functions to be used for the data format conversion tasks needed in Printer Applications. In CUPS-Filters versions up…
more
to and including 1.28.17 and libscupsfilters versions 2.0.0 through 2.1.1, CUPS-Filters's `imagetoraster` filter has an out of bounds read/write vulnerability in the processing of TIFF image files. While the pixel buffer is allocated with the number of pixels times a pre-calculated bytes-per-pixel value, the function which processes these pixels is called with a size of the number of pixels times 3. When suitable inputs are passed, the bytes-per-pixel value can be set to 1 and bytes outside of the buffer bounds get processed. In order to trigger the bug, an attacker must issue a print job with a crafted TIFF file, and pass appropriate print job options to control the bytes-per-pixel value of the output format. They must choose a printer configuration under which the `imagetoraster` filter or its C-function equivalent `cfFilterImageToRaster()` gets invoked. The vulnerability exists in both CUPS-Filters 1.x and the successor library libcupsfilters (CUPS-Filters 2.x). In CUPS-Filters 2.x, the vulnerable function is `_cfImageReadTIFF() in libcupsfilters`. When this function is invoked as part of `cfFilterImageToRaster()`, the caller passes a look-up-table during whose processing the out of bounds memory access happens. In CUPS-Filters 1.x, the equivalent functions are all found in the cups-filters repository, which is not split into subprojects yet, and the vulnerable code is in `_cupsImageReadTIFF()`, which is called through `cupsImageOpen()` from the `imagetoraster` tool. A patch is available in commit b69dfacec7f176281782e2f7ac44f04bf9633cfa.
- 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 directly finds out-of-bounds read flaws through static analysis, fuzzing, and dynamic bounds checks.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure engineering principles require bounds checking and memory-safe constructs that stop out-of-bounds reads from being introduced.
Process isolation confines the effects of an out-of-bounds read to the compromised process.
Input validation rejects malformed indices or lengths that would otherwise cause reads outside buffer bounds.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 such as bounds checking and memory-safe languages directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover instances of out-of-bounds reads after code is deployed.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing out-of-bounds read flaws.
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 includes fuzzing and static analysis that detect out-of-bounds read defects before release.
Logging can record evidence of an out-of-bounds read but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and bounds checking that directly prevent out-of-bounds reads.
Application security requirements include explicit bounds and memory-safety specifications that mitigate buffer over-reads.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require memory-safe design patterns and runtime protections against out-of-bounds access.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe pointer arithmetic and mandate bounds-checked reads, eliminating CWE-125.