CVE-2025-59530
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-59530 is a high-severity Reachable Assertion (CWE-617) vulnerability. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 36th 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 SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-33746
Vulnerability Data
quic-go is an implementation of the QUIC protocol in Go. In versions prior to 0.49.0, 0.54.1, and 0.55.0, a misbehaving or malicious server can cause a denial-of-service (DoS) attack on the quic-go client by triggering an assertion failure, leading to…
more
a process crash. This requires no authentication and can be exploited during the handshake phase. This was observed in the wild with certain server implementations. quic-go needs to be able to handle misbehaving server implementations, including those that prematurely send a HANDSHAKE_DONE frame. Versions 0.49.0, 0.54.1, and 0.55.0 discard Initial keys when receiving a HANDSHAKE_DONE frame, thereby correctly handling premature HANDSHAKE_DONE frames.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation finds reachable assertions during development.
Requires the system to fail to a known safe state on specified failures, limiting the impact of unhandled exceptional conditions.
Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures triggered by indicated failures, structurally preventing unhandled or mishandled exceptional conditions.
Security engineering principles discourage use of assertions for handling untrusted input.
Validating untrusted inputs structurally prevents attacker data from reaching and triggering assertions.
Requires generation of appropriate error messages on exceptional conditions, directly enforcing correct handling rather than silent or incorrect 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 unsafe assertions from being coded in reachable paths.
Runtime monitoring of software can detect assertion-triggered crashes as adverse events.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover and record reachable-assertion flaws before deployment.
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 can detect reachable assertions before release, reducing the likelihood of exploitation.
Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.
Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.
Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.
Secure development lifecycle mandates defensive coding and input validation that prevent reachable assertions from being triggered by untrusted data.
Application security requirements can specify that assertions must not be reachable from attacker-controlled inputs.