CVE-2025-37843 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-37843
Vulnerability Scoring

Analysis In Progress
Analysis In Progress

Attack Complexity Details

  • Attack Complexity:
    Attack Complexity Analysis In Progress
  • Attack Vector:
    Attack Vector Under Analysis
  • Privileges Required: None
    No authentication is required for exploitation.
  • Scope:
    Impact is confined to the initially vulnerable component.
  • User Interaction: None
    No user interaction is necessary for exploitation.

CVE-2025-37843 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕠 12 May 2025, 17:32 UTC
Originally published on: 🕖 09 May 2025, 07:16 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 3 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-37843 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-37843: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: PCI: pciehp: Avoid unnecessary device replacement check Hot-removal of nested PCI hotplug ports suffers from a long-standing race condition which can lead to a deadlock: A parent hotplug port acquires pci_lock_rescan_remove(), then waits for pciehp to unbind from a child hotplug port. Meanwhile that child hotplug port tries to acquire pci_lock_rescan_remove() as well in order to remove its own children. The deadlock only occurs if the parent acquires pci_lock_rescan_remove() first, not if the child happens to acquire it first. Several workarounds to avoid the issue have been proposed and discarded over the years, e.g.: https://lore.kernel.org/r/4c882e25194ba8282b78fe963fec8faae7cf23eb.1529173804.git.lukas@wunner.de/ A proper fix is being worked on, but needs more time as it is nontrivial and necessarily intrusive. Recent commit 9d573d19547b ("PCI: pciehp: Detect device replacement during system sleep") provokes more frequent occurrence of the deadlock when removing more than one Thunderbolt device during system sleep. The commit sought to detect device replacement, but also triggered on device removal. Differentiating reliably between replacement and removal is impossible because pci_get_dsn() returns 0 both if the device was removed, as well as if it was replaced with one lacking a Device Serial Number. Avoid the more frequent occurrence of the deadlock by checking whether the hotplug port itself was hot-removed. If so, there's no sense in checking whether its child device was replaced. This works because the ->resume_noirq() callback is invoked in top-down order for the entire hierarchy: A parent hotplug port detecting device replacement (or removal) marks all children as removed using pci_dev_set_disconnected() and a child hotplug port can then reliably detect being removed.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-37843

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-37843 depends on two key factors: attack complexity (the level of effort required to execute an exploit) and privileges required (the access level an attacker needs).

Exploitability Analysis for CVE-2025-37843

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-37843.

Understanding AC and PR

A lower complexity and fewer privilege requirements make exploitation easier. Security teams should evaluate these aspects to determine the urgency of mitigation strategies, such as patch management and access control policies.

Attack Complexity (AC) measures the difficulty in executing an exploit. A high AC means that specific conditions must be met, making an attack more challenging, while a low AC means the vulnerability can be exploited with minimal effort.

Privileges Required (PR) determine the level of system access necessary for an attack. Vulnerabilities requiring no privileges are more accessible to attackers, whereas high privilege requirements limit exploitation to authorized users with elevated access.

CVSS Score Breakdown Chart

Above is the CVSS Sub-score Breakdown for CVE-2025-37843, illustrating how Base, Impact, and Exploitability factors combine to form the overall severity rating. A higher sub-score typically indicates a more severe or easier-to-exploit vulnerability.

CIA Impact Analysis

Below is the Impact Analysis for CVE-2025-37843, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-37843 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-37843 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-37843 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-37843 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-37843: Combat Critical CVE Threats

Stay updated with real-time CVE vulnerabilities and take action to secure your systems. Enhance your cybersecurity posture with the latest threat intelligence and mitigation techniques. Develop the skills necessary to defend against CVEs and secure critical infrastructures. Join the top cybersecurity professionals safeguarding today's infrastructures.

Other 5 Recently Published CVEs Vulnerabilities

  • CVE-2025-62672 – rplay through 3.3.2 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (SIGSEGV and daemon crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact. This occurs...
  • CVE-2025-47410 – Apache Geode is vulnerable to CSRF attacks through GET requests to the Management and Monitoring REST API that could allow an attacker who has tric...
  • CVE-2025-11926 – The Related Posts Lite plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Stored Cross-Site Scripting via admin settings in all versions up to, and including, 1...
  • CVE-2025-9890 – The Theme Editor plugin for WordPress is vulnerable to Cross-Site Request Forgery in all versions up to, and including, 3.0. This is due to missing...
  • CVE-2025-5555 – A vulnerability has been found in Nixdorf Wincor PORT IO Driver up to 1.0.0.1. This affects the function sub_11100 in the library wnport.sys of the...