Cyber Resilience

CVE-2025-71006

Oneflow 0.9.0

Public PoC
Published
28 January 2026
Modified
03 February 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0028 20th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2025-71006 is a medium-severity Divide By Zero (CWE-369) vulnerability in Oneflow Oneflow. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004); ranked at the 20th 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) and SI-11 (Error Handling) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A floating point exception (FPE) in the oneflow.reshape component of OneFlow v0.9.0 allows attackers to cause a Denial of Service (DoS) via a crafted input.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise TechniquesAI

T1499.004 Application or System Exploitation Impact
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities that can cause an application or system to crash and deny availability to users.
Why these techniques?

FPE via crafted input directly enables application DoS through software exploitation (T1499.004).

Confidence: HIGH · MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise v19.0

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2025-71005Same product: Oneflow Oneflow
CVE-2025-65887Same product: Oneflow Oneflow
CVE-2025-71002Same product: Oneflow Oneflow
CVE-2025-70999Same product: Oneflow Oneflow
CVE-2025-71000Same product: Oneflow Oneflow
CVE-2025-71004Same product: Oneflow Oneflow
CVE-2025-65888Same product: Oneflow Oneflow
CVE-2025-71001Same product: Oneflow Oneflow
CVE-2025-71009Same product: Oneflow Oneflow
CVE-2025-65886Same product: Oneflow Oneflow

Affected Assets

oneflow
oneflow
0.9.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)
  • SI-10 Information Input Validation
  • SI-11 Error Handling
Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)
  • SI-2 Flaw Remediation
Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

prevent

Validates reshape inputs to reject crafted values that trigger divide-by-zero FPE before the operation executes.

prevent

Ensures floating-point exceptions in oneflow.reshape are caught and handled gracefully instead of terminating the process.

respondrecover

Requires prompt remediation of the known divide-by-zero flaw in OneFlow reshape once a corrected version is available.

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 include code analysis, input validation, and testing that prevent divide-by-zero errors.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability identification processes can discover divide-by-zero flaws via static analysis or testing.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Routine patching and replacement can remediate divide-by-zero bugs present in deployed software.

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.

detects

Security testing in development can detect divide-by-zero conditions before release.

prevents

Secure development lifecycle includes input validation and error-handling practices that can prevent divide-by-zero faults.

prevents

Application security requirements can mandate checks for zero denominators and safe arithmetic handling.

prevents

Secure architecture principles encourage defensive coding patterns that avoid arithmetic exceptions.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly require validation to prevent divide-by-zero and similar runtime faults.

References