Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2025-68670 is a critical-severity Stack-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-121) vulnerability in Neutrinolabs Xrdp. Its CVSS base score is 9.1 (Critical).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 32% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2025-68670 is an unauthenticated stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability affecting xrdp, an open source Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) server, in versions prior to v0.10.5. The flaw arises from improper bounds checking when processing user domain information during the connection sequence, enabling attackers to overwrite the stack buffer and return address to potentially redirect execution flow. Associated with CWE-121 (Stack-based Buffer Overflow) and CWE-787 (Out-of-bounds Write), it carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 9.1 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H), indicating critical severity due to its network accessibility and lack of prerequisites.
Remote, unauthenticated attackers can exploit this vulnerability over the network by sending specially crafted connection requests containing malicious user domain data. Successful exploitation could allow arbitrary code execution on the target system with the privileges of the xrdp process, potentially leading to full system compromise. The impact is partially mitigated if xrdp was compiled with stack canary protection, as this would require a secondary vulnerability to leak the canary value before control flow hijacking.
Advisories recommend upgrading to xrdp v0.10.5, which includes a patch addressing the bounds checking issue, as detailed in the project's GitHub security advisory (GHSA-rwvg-gp87-gh6f), release notes, and the specific commit (488c8c7d4d189514a366cd8301b6e816c5218ffa). Debian LTS announcements also cover the issue for affected distributions. Production systems should not rely solely on stack canary protections for defense.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-206388
Vulnerability Data
xrdp is an open source RDP server. xrdp before v0.10.5 contains an unauthenticated stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability. The issue stems from improper bounds checking when processing user domain information during the connection sequence. If exploited, the vulnerability could allow remote…
more
attackers to execute arbitrary code on the target system. The vulnerability allows an attacker to overwrite the stack buffer and the return address, which could theoretically be used to redirect the execution flow. The impact of this vulnerability is lessened if a compiler flag has been used to build the xrdp executable with stack canary protection. If this is the case, a second vulnerability would need to be used to leak the stack canary value. Upgrade to version 0.10.5 to receive a patch. Additionally, do not rely on stack canary protection on production systems.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 2 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can discover stack-buffer overflows before deployment.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from exceeding stack buffer bounds.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability to execute injected code after a stack overflow.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure-engineering principles include bounds-checked coding and safe buffer handling that avoid introducing the flaw.
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 prevent introduction of stack buffer overflows.
Vulnerability scanning can discover stack buffer overflows but does not prevent their introduction.
Patching eliminates known instances of the weakness after discovery.
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 (fuzzing, static analysis) detects stack overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates buffer-safety practices that directly prevent stack overflows.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size and input-validation rules.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety and least-privilege stack usage.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer handling that causes CWE-121.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.
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).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248594 OL 8 must implement address space layout randomization (ASLR) to protect its memory from unauthorized code execution. prevents CWE-121
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-121