CVE-2025-37865 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-37865
Vulnerability Scoring

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-2025-37865 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-2025-37865 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-37865: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net: dsa: mv88e6xxx: fix -ENOENT when deleting VLANs and MST is unsupported Russell King reports that on the ZII dev rev B, deleting a bridge VLAN from a user port fails with -ENOENT: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/Z_lQXNP0s5-IiJzd@shell.armlinux.org.uk/ This comes from mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() -> mv88e6xxx_mst_put(), which tries to find an MST entry in &chip->msts associated with the SID, but fails and returns -ENOENT as such. But we know that this chip does not support MST at all, so that is not surprising. The question is why does the guard in mv88e6xxx_mst_put() not exit early: if (!sid) return 0; And the answer seems to be simple: the sid comes from vlan.sid which supposedly was previously populated by mv88e6xxx_vtu_get(). But some chip->info->ops->vtu_getnext() implementations do not populate vlan.sid, for example see mv88e6185_g1_vtu_getnext(). In that case, later in mv88e6xxx_port_vlan_leave() we are using a garbage sid which is just residual stack memory. Testing for sid == 0 covers all cases of a non-bridge VLAN or a bridge VLAN mapped to the default MSTI. For some chips, SID 0 is valid and installed by mv88e6xxx_stu_setup(). A chip which does not support the STU would implicitly only support mapping all VLANs to the default MSTI, so although SID 0 is not valid, it would be sufficient, if we were to zero-initialize the vlan structure, to fix the bug, due to the coincidence that a test for vlan.sid == 0 already exists and leads to the same (correct) behavior. Another option which would be sufficient would be to add a test for mv88e6xxx_has_stu() inside mv88e6xxx_mst_put(), symmetric to the one which already exists in mv88e6xxx_mst_get(). But that placement means the caller will have to dereference vlan.sid, which means it will access uninitialized memory, which is not nice even if it ignores it later. So we end up making both modifications, in order to not rely just on the sid == 0 coincidence, but also to avoid having uninitialized structure fields which might get temporarily accessed.

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-37865

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-37865 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-2025-37865

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-37865.

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-2025-37865, 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-2025-37865, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

Confidentiality: None
CVE-2025-37865 does not compromise confidentiality.
Integrity: None
CVE-2025-37865 does not impact data integrity.
Availability: None
CVE-2025-37865 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-37865 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-37865: 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-2025-5582 – A vulnerability was found in CodeAstro Real Estate Management System 1.0. It has been rated as critical. This issue affects some unknown processing...
CVE-2025-5581 – A vulnerability was found in CodeAstro Real Estate Management System 1.0. It has been declared as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code...
CVE-2025-5580 – A vulnerability was found in CodeAstro Real Estate Management System 1.0. It has been classified as critical. This affects an unknown part of the f...
CVE-2025-5579 – A vulnerability was found in PHPGurukul Dairy Farm Shop Management System 1.3 and classified as critical. Affected by this issue is some unknown fu...
CVE-2025-5578 – A vulnerability has been found in PHPGurukul Dairy Farm Shop Management System 1.3 and classified as critical. Affected by this vulnerability is an...