Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/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-2025-62601 is a low-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Eprosima Fast Dds. Its CVSS base score is 1.7 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 42th 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-2025-62601 is a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in Fast DDS, a C++ implementation of the OMG Data Distribution Service (DDS) standard. It affects versions prior to 3.4.1, 3.3.1, and 2.6.11 when security mode is enabled. The issue arises from modifying the DATA Submessage within an SPDP packet sent by a publisher, specifically by tampering with the `str_size` value in the `PID_IDENTITY_TOKEN` or `PID_PERMISSIONS_TOKEN` fields. This tampering, processed via `readString` called from `readBinaryProperty`, triggers a 32-bit integer overflow that causes `std::vector::resize` to allocate an attacker-controlled size, leading to the heap buffer overflow. The vulnerability is rated 7.5 on the CVSS v3.1 scale (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H) and maps to CWEs 122 (Heap-based Buffer Overflow) and 787 (Out-of-bounds Write).
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability by crafting and sending a malformed SPDP packet to a targeted Fast DDS publisher with security enabled. No user interaction or privileges are required, enabling exploitation over the network with low complexity. Successful exploitation results in remote process termination via the heap buffer overflow, causing a denial-of-service condition on the affected Fast DDS instance.
Mitigation requires upgrading to Fast DDS versions 3.4.1, 3.3.1, or 2.6.11, which include patches addressing the integer overflow and buffer handling in the relevant submessage parsing code. The fixing commits are available at https://github.com/eProsima/Fast-DDS/commit/354218514d32beac963ff5c306f1cf159ee37c5f, https://github.com/eProsima/Fast-DDS/commit/a726e6a5daba660418d1f7c05b6f203c17747d2b, and https://github.com/eProsima/Fast-DDS/commit/ced3b6f92d928af1eae77d5fe889878128ad421a. Additional tracking is provided by the Debian security team at https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2025-62601.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206631
Vulnerability Data
Fast DDS is a C++ implementation of the DDS (Data Distribution Service) standard of the OMG (Object Management Group ). Prior to versions 3.4.1, 3.3.1, and 2.6.11, when the security mode is enabled, modifying the DATA Submessage within an SPDP…
more
packet sent by a publisher causes a heap buffer overflow, resulting in remote termination of Fast-DDS. If the fields of `PID_IDENTITY_TOKEN` or `PID_PERMISSIONS_TOKEN` in the DATA Submessage — specifically by tampering with the `str_size` value read by `readString` (called from `readBinaryProperty`) — are modified, a 32-bit integer overflow can occur, causing `std::vector::resize` to use an attacker-controlled size and quickly trigger heap buffer overflow and remote process term ination. Versions 3.4.1, 3.3.1, and 2.6.11 patch the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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 scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 can detect heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.