Security Resilience

CVE-2025-8414

Published
17 October 2025
Modified
18 October 2026
CVSS Score v4 9.4
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:H/SC:H/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/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:X
EPSS Score 0.0027 19th percentile
Risk Priority 35 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2025-8414 is a critical-severity Improper Input Validation (CWE-20) vulnerability in Silabs (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 9.4 (Critical).

Operationally, ranked at the 19th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); 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.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

A05:2025 Injection

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Due to improper input validation, a buffer overflow vulnerability is present in Zigbee EZSP Host Applications. If the buffer overflows, stack corruption is possible. In certain conditions, this could lead to arbitrary code execution. Access to a network key is…

more

required to exploit this vulnerability.

CWE(s)
CWE-20

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-21271Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-21310Shared CWE-20
CVE-2019-11708Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-42389Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-13927Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-17987Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-102823Shared CWE-20
CVE-2024-47179Shared CWE-20
CVE-2026-11732Shared CWE-20
CVE-2024-47857Shared CWE-20

Affected Assets

Silabs
—
inferred from references and description; NVD did not file a CPE for this CVE

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation can discover missing input validation through analysis or test cases.

SI-10 Information Input Validation good match

SI-10 directly requires validity checks on information inputs, structurally preventing improper or missing validation.

SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools partial match

Requiring documented development standards and tools can embed input-validation practices into the engineering process.

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.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

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.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Requiring language-specific secure coding standards, peer review, SAST and documented mitigation of common programming errors forces validation of all inputs before they are trusted.

Hardening callouts derived

DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.

  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-20, a class-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.

References