Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:H/UI:N/VC:L/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/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-2025-62787 is a low-severity Buffer Over-read (CWE-126) vulnerability in Wazuh Wazuh. Its CVSS base score is 2.1 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique OS Credential Dumping (T1003); ranked at the 30th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-36682
Vulnerability Data
Wazuh is a free and open source platform used for threat prevention, detection, and response. Prior to 4.10.2, a buffer over-read occurs in DecodeWinevt() when child_attr[p]->attributes[j] is accessed, because the corresponding index (j) is incorrect. A compromised agent can cause…
more
a READ operation beyond the end of the allocated buffer (which may contain sensitive information) by sending a specially crafted message to the wazuh manager. An attacker who is able to craft and send an agent message to the wazuh manager can cause a buffer over-read and potentially access sensitive data. While the buffer over-read is always triggered while resolving the arguments of mdebug2, specific configuration options (analysisd.debug=2) need to be in place for the respective data to be leaked. This vulnerability is fixed in 4.10.2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, bounds checking tests) directly finds buffer over-read flaws.
Engineering principles such as memory-safe design and bounds-checked abstractions structurally stop introduction of out-of-bounds reads.
Process isolation limits the blast radius of an over-read to the compromised domain.
Input validation enforces length and index constraints that prevent many externally triggered over-reads.
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 prevent introduction of buffer over-read weaknesses.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover buffer over-read flaws via scanning or review.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software removes known instances of buffer over-read bugs.
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 buffer over-reads before release.
Secure SDLC mandates input validation and bounds checking that can prevent buffer over-reads.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size and bounds-checking rules.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety and bounds-checking design choices.
Secure coding standards directly require bounds-checked buffer access, mitigating over-reads.