Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2025-9184 is a high-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox. Its CVSS base score is 8.1 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Process Injection (T1055); ranked at the 30th 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-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) 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-2025-9184 encompasses multiple memory safety bugs affecting Firefox ESR 140.1, Thunderbird ESR 140.1, Firefox 141, and Thunderbird 141. These bugs include instances showing evidence of memory corruption, which Mozilla presumes could be exploited with sufficient effort to achieve arbitrary code execution. The vulnerability is classified under CWE-119 (improper restriction of operations within the bounds of a memory buffer) and NVD-CWE-noinfo, with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 8.1 (AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H).
Remote attackers require no privileges or user interaction to exploit this vulnerability over the network, though it demands high attack complexity. Successful exploitation could result in high-impact confidentiality, integrity, and availability violations, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution within the affected browser or email client processes.
Mozilla's security advisories (MFSA 2025-64, 67, 70, and 72) detail the fixes applied in Firefox 142, Firefox ESR 140.2, Thunderbird 142, and Thunderbird ESR 140.2. Security practitioners should prioritize updating to these patched versions and monitor the linked Bugzilla entries for additional technical details on the individual bugs (1929482, 1976376, 1979163, 1979955).
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-25238
Vulnerability Data
Memory safety bugs present in Firefox ESR 140.1, Thunderbird ESR 140.1, Firefox 141 and Thunderbird 141. Some of these bugs showed evidence of memory corruption and we presume that with enough effort some of these could have been exploited to…
more
run arbitrary code. This vulnerability was fixed in Firefox 142, Firefox ESR 140.2, Thunderbird 142, and Thunderbird 140.2.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
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 (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
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 catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.