CVE-2025-69250
Free5Gc Udm ≤ 1.4.1
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:H/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2025-69250 is a medium-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Free5Gc Udm. Its CVSS base score is 6.6 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190); ranked at the 33th 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-2025-69250 is an information disclosure vulnerability in the Unified Data Management (UDM) component of free5GC, an open-source implementation of 5G mobile core networks. Affecting versions up to and including 1.4.1, the UDM service leaks detailed internal error messages, such as strconv.ParseInt parsing errors, to remote clients when processing invalid pduSessionId inputs via the Nudm_UECM DELETE service. This exposure of implementation details enables service fingerprinting and is associated with CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation) and CWE-754 (Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions), earning a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N).
Any remote attacker with network access to a vulnerable free5GC UDM deployment can exploit this issue without authentication or user interaction by sending crafted requests with invalid pduSessionId values to the Nudm_UECM DELETE endpoint. Successful exploitation reveals sensitive internal error information, facilitating reconnaissance through service fingerprinting, though it does not enable direct data modification, denial of service, or further privilege escalation.
The free5GC security advisory (GHSA-6w77-5pqh-83rm) and related GitHub issue (#750) detail the flaw, with mitigation provided in udm pull request 76 and commit 504b14458d156558b3c0ade7107b86b3d5e72998. No application-level workaround exists, and applying the official patch is the recommended remediation for all affected deployments.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-207567
Vulnerability Data
free5gc UDM provides Unified Data Management (UDM) for free5GC, an open-source project for 5th generation (5G) mobile core networks. In versions up to and including 1.4.1, the service reliably leaks detailed internal error messages (e.g., strconv.ParseInt parsing errors) to remote…
more
clients when processing invalid pduSessionId inputs. This exposes implementation details and can be used for service fingerprinting. All deployments of free5GC using the UDM Nudm_UECM DELETE service may be vulnerable. free5gc/udm pull request 76 contains a fix for the issue. No direct workaround is available at the application level. Applying the official patch is recommended.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 13 hardening rules · 4 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.
Security engineering principles include structured handling of edge cases and exceptions during design.
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.
Runtime monitoring of software and environments can detect adverse events triggered by unhandled exceptional conditions.
Generating logs of exceptions and errors enables detection of improper handling of unusual conditions.
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.
Logging can record unhandled exceptions but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Monitoring may detect symptoms of unhandled conditions but does not eliminate the root weakness.
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.
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 (2 rules)
- V-248574 YUM must be configured to prevent the installation of patches, service packs, device drivers, or OL 8 system components that have not been digitally signed using a certificate that is recognized and approved by the organization. prevents CWE-754
- V-248575 OL 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-754
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-754
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