CVE-2025-61684
H2O Quicly ≤ 2026-01-18
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-61684 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in H2O Quicly. 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 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 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-2025-61684 is a denial-of-service vulnerability in Quicly, an open-source implementation of the IETF QUIC protocol. Versions of Quicly prior to commit d9d3df6a8530a102b57d840e39b0311ce5c9e14e contain flaws that allow a remote attacker to trigger an assertion failure, causing any process using the library to crash. The issue is associated with CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation) and CWE-617 (Reachable Assertion), and it has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H), indicating high availability impact with network accessibility and no privileges required.
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending specially crafted QUIC packets to a target system running an affected version of Quicly. Successful exploitation leads to an assertion failure that terminates the process, resulting in a denial of service. The low attack complexity and lack of user interaction make it feasible for attackers to repeatedly trigger crashes, potentially disrupting services relying on QUIC for transport.
Mitigation is available via the fixing commit d9d3df6a8530a102b57d840e39b0311ce5c9e14e, which addresses the assertion failure. Security practitioners should update Quicly to this commit or later. Additional details are provided in the GitHub security advisory GHSA-wr3c-345m-43v9.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206302
Vulnerability Data
Quicly, an IETF QUIC protocol implementation, is susceptible to a denial-of-service attack prior to commit d9d3df6a8530a102b57d840e39b0311ce5c9e14e. A remote attacker can exploit these bugs to trigger an assertion failure that crashes process using Quicly. Commit d9d3df6a8530a102b57d840e39b0311ce5c9e14e fixes the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
Security engineering principles discourage use of assertions for handling untrusted input.
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 require and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20