CVE-2025-37991 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-37991
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-2025-37991 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕐 04 Jun 2025, 13:15 UTC
Originally published on: 🕕 20 May 2025, 18:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 14 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-37991 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-37991: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: parisc: Fix double SIGFPE crash Camm noticed that on parisc a SIGFPE exception will crash an application with a second SIGFPE in the signal handler. Dave analyzed it, and it happens because glibc uses a double-word floating-point store to atomically update function descriptors. As a result of lazy binding, we hit a floating-point store in fpe_func almost immediately. When the T bit is set, an assist exception trap occurs when when the co-processor encounters *any* floating-point instruction except for a double store of register %fr0. The latter cancels all pending traps. Let's fix this by clearing the Trap (T) bit in the FP status register before returning to the signal handler in userspace. The issue can be reproduced with this test program: root@parisc:~# cat fpe.c static void fpe_func(int sig, siginfo_t *i, void *v) { sigset_t set; sigemptyset(&set); sigaddset(&set, SIGFPE); sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &set, NULL); printf("GOT signal %d with si_code %ld\n", sig, i->si_code); } int main() { struct sigaction action = { .sa_sigaction = fpe_func, .sa_flags = SA_RESTART|SA_SIGINFO }; sigaction(SIGFPE, &action, 0); feenableexcept(FE_OVERFLOW); return printf("%lf\n",1.7976931348623158E308*1.7976931348623158E308); } root@parisc:~# gcc fpe.c -lm root@parisc:~# ./a.out Floating point exception root@parisc:~# strace -f ./a.out execve("./a.out", ["./a.out"], 0xf9ac7034 /* 20 vars */) = 0 getrlimit(RLIMIT_STACK, {rlim_cur=8192*1024, rlim_max=RLIM_INFINITY}) = 0 ... rt_sigaction(SIGFPE, {sa_handler=0x1110a, sa_mask=[], sa_flags=SA_RESTART|SA_SIGINFO}, NULL, 8) = 0 --- SIGFPE {si_signo=SIGFPE, si_code=FPE_FLTOVF, si_addr=0x1078f} --- --- SIGFPE {si_signo=SIGFPE, si_code=FPE_FLTOVF, si_addr=0xf8f21237} --- +++ killed by SIGFPE +++ Floating point exception

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-37991

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-37991 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-2025-37991

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-37991.

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-2025-37991, 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-2025-37991, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-37991 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-37991 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-37991 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-37991 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-37991: 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...