CVE-2025-38001 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-38001
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-2025-38001 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕒 09 Jun 2025, 15:15 UTC
Originally published on: 🕑 06 Jun 2025, 14:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 3 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-38001 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-38001: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: net_sched: hfsc: Address reentrant enqueue adding class to eltree twice Savino says: "We are writing to report that this recent patch (141d34391abbb315d68556b7c67ad97885407547) [1] can be bypassed, and a UAF can still occur when HFSC is utilized with NETEM. The patch only checks the cl->cl_nactive field to determine whether it is the first insertion or not [2], but this field is only incremented by init_vf [3]. By using HFSC_RSC (which uses init_ed) [4], it is possible to bypass the check and insert the class twice in the eltree. Under normal conditions, this would lead to an infinite loop in hfsc_dequeue for the reasons we already explained in this report [5]. However, if TBF is added as root qdisc and it is configured with a very low rate, it can be utilized to prevent packets from being dequeued. This behavior can be exploited to perform subsequent insertions in the HFSC eltree and cause a UAF." To fix both the UAF and the infinite loop, with netem as an hfsc child, check explicitly in hfsc_enqueue whether the class is already in the eltree whenever the HFSC_RSC flag is set. [1] https://web.git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=141d34391abbb315d68556b7c67ad97885407547 [2] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.15-rc5/source/net/sched/sch_hfsc.c#L1572 [3] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.15-rc5/source/net/sched/sch_hfsc.c#L677 [4] https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.15-rc5/source/net/sched/sch_hfsc.c#L1574 [5] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/8DuRWwfqjoRDLDmBMlIfbrsZg9Gx50DHJc1ilxsEBNe2D6NMoigR_eIRIG0LOjMc3r10nUUZtArXx4oZBIdUfZQrwjcQhdinnMis_0G7VEk=@willsroot.io/T/#u

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-38001

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-38001 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-2025-38001

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-38001.

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-2025-38001, 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-2025-38001, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-38001 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-38001 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-38001 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-38001 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-38001: 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-2025-6934 – The Opal Estate Pro – Property Management and Submission plugin for WordPress, used by the FullHouse - Real Estate Responsive WordPress Theme, is v...
  • CVE-2025-6081 – Insufficiently Protected Credentials in LDAP in Konica Minolta bizhub 227 Multifunction printers version GCQ-Y3 or earlier allows an attacker can r...
  • CVE-2025-5967 – A stored cross-site scripting vulnerability in ENS HX 10.0.4 allows a malicious user to inject arbitrary HTML into the ENS HX Malware Scan Name fie...
  • CVE-2025-6940 – A vulnerability classified as critical was found in TOTOLINK A702R 4.0.0-B20230721.1521. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality...
  • CVE-2025-6939 – A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in TOTOLINK A3002RU 3.0.0-B20230809.1615. Affected is an unknown function of the file /boafrm...