Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-69652

Gnu Binutils ≤ 2.46

Public PoC
Published
06 March 2026
Modified
11 March 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.2
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0017 7th percentile
Risk Priority 46 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-69652 is a medium-severity Improper Cleanup on Thrown Exception (CWE-460) vulnerability in Gnu Binutils. Its CVSS base score is 6.2 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 7th 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 SC-24 (Fail in Known State) and SI-17 (Fail-safe Procedures) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

GNU Binutils thru 2.46 readelf contains a vulnerability that leads to an abort (SIGABRT) when processing a crafted ELF binary with malformed DWARF abbrev or debug information. Due to incomplete state cleanup in process_debug_info(), an invalid debug_info_p state may propagate…

more

into DWARF attribute parsing routines. When certain malformed attributes result in an unexpected data length of zero, byte_get_little_endian() triggers a fatal abort. No evidence of memory corruption or code execution was observed; the impact is limited to denial of service.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-1179Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-11495Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-7545Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-69644Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-5244Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-66864Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-11413Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-11081Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-1149Same product: Gnu Binutils
CVE-2025-69651Same product: Gnu Binutils

Affected Assets

gnu
binutils
≤ 2.46

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Requires the system to fail to a known state on indicated failures, directly forcing proper state cleanup instead of leaving inconsistent state after an exception.

Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures on failures, which structurally enforces cleanup actions that the weakness omits.

Requires application of security engineering principles (e.g., fail-safe, complete mediation) during design that would eliminate improper exception cleanup.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly enforce proper exception handling and resource cleanup.

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.

finds

Security testing can detect missing cleanup paths, thereby mitigating the weakness before deployment.

prevents

Secure SDLC mandates exception-handling and cleanup practices that reduce improper state after thrown exceptions.

prevents

Application security requirements can specify robust exception handling and resource-release rules.

prevents

Secure architecture principles include designing for safe failure and guaranteed cleanup on exceptions.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require proper resource release and state restoration after exceptions.

References