Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/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-2025-62799 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Eprosima Fast Dds. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 39th 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-2025-62799 is a heap buffer overflow vulnerability in the DATA_FRAG receive path of Fast DDS, an open-source C++ implementation of the OMG Data Distribution Service (DDS) standard. The issue affects Fast DDS versions prior to 3.4.1, 3.3.1, and 2.6.11. It stems from a malformed RTPS DATA_FRAG packet where the fragmentSize and sampleSize parameters are crafted to violate internal assumptions, leading to a 4-byte alignment step during fragment metadata initialization that writes past the end of the allocated payload buffer.
An unauthenticated remote attacker can exploit this vulnerability by transmitting a single specially crafted RTPS DATA_FRAG packet to a vulnerable Fast DDS instance. Successful exploitation triggers an immediate crash, resulting in a denial-of-service (DoS) condition, and carries a risk of memory corruption that could enable remote code execution (RCE). The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.8 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and is associated with CWE-122 (Heap-based Buffer Overflow) and CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write).
Mitigation is available through upgrading to Fast DDS versions 3.4.1, 3.3.1, or 2.6.11, which include patches addressing the alignment issue in the DATA_FRAG handling code. Relevant patch commits are published in the eProsima/Fast-DDS GitHub repository, and Debian's security tracker documents the issue for affected packages.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206666
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, a heap buffer overflow exists in the Fast-DDS DATA_FRAG receive path. An un…
more
authenticated sender can transmit a single malformed RTPS DATA_FRAG packet where `fragmentSize` and `sampleSize` are craft ed to violate internal assumptions. Due to a 4-byte alignment step during fragment metadata initialization, the code write s past the end of the allocated payload buffer, causing immediate crash (DoS) and potentially enabling memory corruption ( RCE risk). 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.