Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-67269 is a high-severity Wrap or Wraparound (CWE-191) vulnerability in Gpsd Project Gpsd. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
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; 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
An integer underflow vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2025-67269, affects the `nextstate()` function in `gpsd/packet.c` within gpsd versions prior to commit `ffa1d6f40bca0b035fc7f5e563160ebb67199da7`. The issue arises during parsing of a NAVCOM packet, where the payload length is computed as `lexer->length = (size_t)c - 4` without verifying if the input byte `c` is less than 4. This triggers an unsigned integer underflow, assigning `lexer->length` a value near `SIZE_MAX`, and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H), mapped to CWE-191 (Integer Underflow).
Attackers can exploit this remotely over the network without authentication or user interaction by sending a specially crafted NAVCOM packet to a gpsd instance. Upon processing, the parser enters a loop attempting to consume an enormous number of bytes, resulting in 100% CPU utilization and a denial-of-service condition that renders the service unresponsive.
Mitigation involves updating gpsd to a version incorporating commit `ffa1d6f40bca0b035fc7f5e563160ebb67199da7` or later, available via the project's GitLab repository. Additional details are documented in the associated GitHub advisory at https://github.com/Jaenact/gspd_cve/blob/main/CVE-2025-67269/README.md.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-0658
Vulnerability Data
An integer underflow vulnerability exists in the `nextstate()` function in `gpsd/packet.c` of gpsd versions prior to commit `ffa1d6f40bca0b035fc7f5e563160ebb67199da7`. When parsing a NAVCOM packet, the payload length is calculated using `lexer->length = (size_t)c - 4` without checking if the input byte…
more
`c` is less than 4. This results in an unsigned integer underflow, setting `lexer->length` to a very large value (near `SIZE_MAX`). The parser then enters a loop attempting to consume this massive number of bytes, causing 100% CPU utilization and a Denial of Service (DoS) condition.
- 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 static/dynamic analysis directly find integer underflow defects before code is released.
Security engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer underflow during subtraction.
Input validation can reject or sanitize values that would cause a subtraction to underflow the representable range.
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 SDLC practices directly prevent integer underflow defects via input validation, bounds checking, and static analysis.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis can surface underflow flaws after they are introduced.
Routine patching can remediate known underflow bugs once they are discovered in deployed software.
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 catches integer underflow defects before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer underflow.
Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid underflow conditions.
Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe safe integer handling and overflow/underflow prevention.