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-2025-62602 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 40th 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-2025-62602 is a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in Fast DDS, a C++ implementation of the OMG Data Distribution Service (DDS) standard. The issue affects versions prior to 3.4.1, 3.3.1, and 2.6.11 when security mode is enabled. It arises from modifying the DATA Submessage within an SPDP packet sent by a publisher, specifically by tampering with the fields of PID_IDENTITY_TOKEN or PID_PERMISSIONS_TOKEN. The function readOctetVector reads an unchecked vecsize value that is propagated unchanged into readData as the length parameter, allowing an attacker-controlled vecsize to trigger a 32-bit integer overflow during length calculation. This leads to a large allocation attempt, resulting in out-of-memory conditions and remote process termination. The vulnerability is rated 7.5 on the CVSS 3.1 scale (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H) and is associated with CWE-122 (Heap-based Buffer Overflow) and CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write).
An attacker can exploit this vulnerability remotely over the network without authentication or user interaction by crafting and sending a malicious SPDP packet with a tampered DATA Submessage. The integer overflow causes excessive memory allocation, quickly exhausting resources and terminating the Fast DDS process, enabling a denial-of-service attack. Exploitation requires the target to have security mode enabled and to process the malicious packet, which can occur in discovery phases of DDS communications.
Patches addressing this issue are available in Fast DDS versions 3.4.1, 3.3.1, and 2.6.11, as implemented in specific GitHub commits such as 354218514d32beac963ff5c306f1cf159ee37c5f, a726e6a5daba660418d1f7c05b6f203c17747d2b, and ced3b6f92d928af1eae77d5fe889878128ad421a. Security practitioners should upgrade to these versions for mitigation. Debian's security tracker also documents the CVE for affected packages.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206657
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 are tampered with — specially `readOctetVector` reads an unchecked `vecsize` that is propagated unchanged into `readData` as the `length` parameter — the attacker-contro lled `vecsize` can trigger a 32-bit integer overflow during the `length` calculation. That overflow can cause large alloca tion attempt that quickly leads to OOM, enabling a remotely-triggerable denial-of-service and remote process termination. 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.