Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-68137 is a high-severity Classic Buffer Overflow (CWE-120) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Everest. Its CVSS base score is 8.3 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 17th 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 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-2025-68137 is an integer overflow vulnerability in EVerest, an open-source EV charging software stack. Prior to version 2025.10.0, the issue occurs in the `SdpPacket::parse_header()` function, where a complete header of size 8 is read but the current buffer length is erroneously set to 7. This causes the remaining length calculation—current length minus header length—to yield a negative value, which is interpreted as `SIZE_MAX` (or slightly less) when cast to the expected `size_t` type.
Attackers on an adjacent network (AV:A) with no privileges (PR:N) and no user interaction (UI:N) can exploit this vulnerability, though it requires high attack complexity (AC:H). Depending on server configuration—plain TCP or TLS—exploitation leads to either an infinite loop or a stack buffer overflow. The vulnerability has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.3 (AV:A/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H) and is linked to CWE-120 (buffer copy without checking size of input) and CWE-835 (infinite loop).
EVerest version 2025.10.0 addresses the vulnerability. Additional details on the issue and remediation are available in the GitHub security advisory at https://github.com/EVerest/everest-core/security/advisories/GHSA-7qq4-q9r8-wc7w.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206317
Vulnerability Data
EVerest is an EV charging software stack. Prior to version 2025.10.0, an integer overflow occurring in `SdpPacket::parse_header()` allows the current buffer length to be set to 7 after a complete header of size 8 has been read. The remaining length…
more
to read is computed using the current length subtracted by the header length which results in a negative value. This value is then interpreted as `SIZE_MAX` (or slightly less) because the expected type of the argument is `size_t`. Depending on whether the server is plain TCP or TLS, this leads to either an infinite loop or a stack buffer overflow. 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
—
—
—
V5.2.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can find missing size checks before deployment.
Input validation directly enforces size checks before buffer copies.
Flaw remediation processes identify and correct infinite-loop defects reported from testing or operations.
Requiring documented development processes and secure coding standards reduces introduction of loops whose termination conditions are unreachable.
Engineering principles require bounds checking and safe buffer handling in design.
Memory protection limits the impact of an overflow once it occurs.
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 enforce bounds checking and input validation that prevent classic buffer overflows.
Vulnerability identification processes such as code review or scanning detect classic buffer overflows before exploitation.
Routine patching replaces vulnerable code containing unchecked buffer copies with corrected versions.
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.
Secure coding directly requires bounds-checked memory operations, addressing the root cause of CWE-120.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect buffer overflows through fuzzing and static analysis, though it does not prevent them at the source.
Secure development life cycle mandates processes that can include input validation and bounds checking to prevent buffer overflows.
Application security requirements can specify input-size validation and safe buffer handling to mitigate classic buffer overflows.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles promote defensive coding patterns that reduce the likelihood of unchecked buffer copies.
Change management can require review of loop logic when code is modified.