Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-59348

Linuxfoundation Dragonfly ≤ 2.1.0

Published
17 September 2025
Modified
18 September 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v4 5.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:X
EPSS Score 0.0033 26th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-59348 is a medium-severity Use of Uninitialized Variable (CWE-457) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Dragonfly. Its CVSS base score is 5.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 26th 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 SC-5 (Denial-of-service Protection) and SI-2 (Flaw Remediation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Dragonfly is an open source P2P-based file distribution and image acceleration system. Prior to 2.1.0, the processPieceFromSource method does not update the structure’s usedTraffic field, because an uninitialized variable n is used as a guard to the AddTraffic method call,…

more

instead of the result.Size variable. A task is processed by a peer. The usedTraffic metadata is not updated during the processing. Rate limiting is incorrectly applied, leading to a denial-of-service condition for the peer. This vulnerability is fixed in 2.1.0.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

T1499.004 Application or System Exploitation Impact
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities that can cause an application or system to crash and deny availability to users.
Why these techniques?

Vulnerability causes incorrect rate limiting during task processing in P2P system, enabling denial-of-service on affected peers via application exploitation.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-59351Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly
CVE-2025-59350Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly
CVE-2025-59354Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly
CVE-2025-59346Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly
CVE-2026-24124Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly
CVE-2025-59347Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly
CVE-2025-59345Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly
CVE-2025-59353Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly
CVE-2025-59410Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly
CVE-2025-59352Same product: Linuxfoundation Dragonfly

Affected Assets

linuxfoundation
dragonfly
≤ 2.1.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SC-5 Denial-of-service Protection
  • SI-2 Flaw Remediation
  • SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Directly counters the DoS condition that results when the uninitialized-variable flaw prevents usedTraffic updates and disables rate limiting.

prevent

Requires prompt remediation of the identified code flaw (CWE-457) that leaves the usedTraffic field unpopulated.

prevent

Mandates developer testing that would detect the uninitialized-variable guard condition before the rate-limiting logic is released.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly catch uninitialized-variable defects via static analysis and code review while the control encompasses many additional development controls.

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.

detects

Security testing can detect uninitialized-variable bugs, but the control is broader.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates practices that reduce uninitialized-variable defects.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify initialization rules, but the control itself does not directly address the weakness.

prevents

Secure coding explicitly requires variable initialization and static-analysis checks.

none

Secure architecture principles encourage defensive coding that can mitigate uninitialized variables.

References