CVE-2025-9165
Libtiff 4.7.0
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/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:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-9165 is a low-severity Missing Release of Memory after Effective Lifetime (CWE-401) vulnerability in Libtiff Libtiff. Its CVSS base score is 1.1 (Low).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499); ranked at the 11th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-25249
Vulnerability Data
A flaw has been found in LibTIFF 4.7.0. This affects the function _TIFFmallocExt/_TIFFCheckRealloc/TIFFHashSetNew/InitCCITTFax3 of the file tools/tiffcmp.c of the component tiffcmp. Executing manipulation can lead to memory leak. The attack is restricted to local execution. This attack is characterized by…
more
high complexity. It is indicated that the exploitability is difficult. The exploit has been published and may be used. There is ongoing doubt regarding the real existence of this vulnerability. This patch is called ed141286a37f6e5ddafb5069347ff5d587e7a4e0. It is best practice to apply a patch to resolve this issue. A researcher disputes the security impact of this issue, because "this is a memory leak on a command line tool that is about to exit anyway". In the reply the project maintainer declares this issue as "a simple 'bug' when leaving the command line tool and (...) not a security issue at all".
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, or runtime leak detection) directly finds missing deallocation.
Requiring documented development standards and tools can mandate memory-management disciplines that avoid leaks at introduction.
Engineering principles applied during development can require explicit resource-release patterns that stop memory leaks from being coded.
Priority-based resource allocation limits the blast radius when released resources are not returned to the pool.
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 enforce proper memory allocation/deallocation via coding standards, reviews, and tooling.
Runtime monitoring can detect resource exhaustion caused by improper shutdown or release.
Lifecycle management of assets can encompass proper resource release at end-of-life or shutdown.
Capacity management helps surface leaks from unreleased resources but does not prevent the coding flaw.
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 in development can detect unreleased memory, providing partial coverage of the weakness.
Including restart, recovery and media-handling instructions reduces the likelihood that resources or sensitive data will be left in an exposed or improperly released state after a failure.
Secure development life cycle mandates memory-management practices that reduce missing-release defects.
Application security requirements can specify explicit memory-release rules, partially mitigating the weakness.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles include resource-management guidelines that address memory leaks.
Secure coding standards directly require proper allocation/deallocation, covering most of this weakness.