CVE-2025-68134
Linuxfoundation Everest ≤ 2025.10.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-68134 is a high-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Everest. Its CVSS base score is 7.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 5th 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-2025-68134 is a vulnerability in EVerest, an open-source EV charging software stack, affecting versions prior to 2025.10.0. The issue arises from the frequent use of the assert() function for error handling, which causes individual modules to crash (CWE-20: Improper Input Validation). This is exacerbated by the EVerest manager's behavior, which shuts down all other modules and exits upon any module termination, resulting in a denial-of-service condition. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.4 (AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:N/A:H).
An attacker with adjacent network access can exploit this vulnerability with low attack complexity, requiring no privileges or user interaction. By triggering an assert() failure in a module—such as through malformed inputs or unexpected conditions—the attacker causes the module to crash, prompting the manager to terminate all modules and exit. This leads to a high-impact denial of service on the affected EV charging system. In multi-EVSE (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment) deployments managed by a single instance, the outage impacts other users sharing the manager.
The GitHub security advisory (GHSA-cxc5-rrj5-8pf3) at https://github.com/EVerest/everest-core/security/advisories/GHSA-cxc5-rrj5-8pf3 confirms that version 2025.10.0 resolves the issue by addressing the improper use of assert() for error handling. Security practitioners should prioritize upgrading to this version or later to mitigate the denial-of-service risk.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206324
Vulnerability Data
EVerest is an EV charging software stack. Prior to version 2025.10.0, the use of the `assert` function to handle errors frequently causes the module to crash. This is particularly critical because the manager shuts down all other modules and exits…
more
when any one of them terminates, leading to a denial of service. In a context where a manager handles multiple EVSE, this would also impact other users. Version 2025.10.0 fixes the issue.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 6 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.
SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.
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 require and enforce input validation during development.
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.
Testing against a defined set of requirements and using code review plus vulnerability scanning forces validation of inputs and handling of unanticipated conditions, reducing the chance that malformed data will be accepted.
Secure-coding guidelines and mandatory security testing (including code scans) compel developers to validate and sanitize inputs at design and implementation time, lowering the incidence of malformed or malicious data reaching downstream components.
Mandating input controls that include integrity checks and input validation ensures that untrusted data is examined before use, blocking the root cause of many injection and malformed-data weaknesses.
Security-by-design principles explicitly call for data validation and sanitization at every layer, reducing the chance that malformed or malicious input will be processed without scrutiny.
Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.
Regular automated validation of system software and data content, combined with scanning of all inbound files, enforces input validation at the boundary before untrusted content is processed.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230265 RHEL 8 must prevent the installation of software, patches, service packs, device drivers, or operating system components of local packages without verification they have been digitally signed using a certificate that is issued by a Certificate Authority (CA) that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-20