Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2025-64503 is a medium-severity Out-of-bounds Write (CWE-787) vulnerability in Openprinting Cups-Filters. Its CVSS base score is 4.0 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 12th 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-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-150365
Vulnerability Data
cups-filters contains backends, filters, and other software required to get the cups printing service working on operating systems other than macos. In cups-filters prior to 1.28.18, by crafting a PDF file with a large `MediaBox` value, an attacker can cause…
more
CUPS-Filter 1.x’s `pdftoraster` tool to write beyond the bounds of an array. First, a PDF with a large `MediaBox` width value causes `header.cupsWidth` to become large. Next, the calculation of `bytesPerLine = (header.cupsBitsPerPixel * header.cupsWidth + 7) / 8` overflows, resulting in a small value. Then, `lineBuf` is allocated with the small `bytesPerLine` size. Finally, `convertLineChunked` calls `writePixel8`, which attempts to write to `lineBuf` outside of its buffer size (out of bounds write). In libcupsfilters, the maintainers found the same `bytesPerLine` multiplication without overflow check, but the provided test case does not cause an overflow there, because the values are different. Commit 50d94ca0f2fa6177613c97c59791bde568631865 contains a patch, which is incorporated into cups-filters version 1.28.18.
- 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 (including fuzzing and bounds checks) finds out-of-bounds write flaws before deployment.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Input validation can structurally reject or sanitize data that would otherwise trigger an out-of-bounds write.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.
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 (static analysis, bounds checking, code review) are the primary means of preventing out-of-bounds writes.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.
Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.
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 and prevent out-of-bounds write defects.
Secure development life cycle mandates practices that prevent out-of-bounds writes.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory handling.
Secure architecture and engineering principles reduce the likelihood of buffer overflows.
Secure coding directly addresses out-of-bounds writes through language choice and coding standards.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.