CVE-2025-39980 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-39980
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-2025-39980 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕒 16 Oct 2025, 15:29 UTC
Originally published on: 🕗 15 Oct 2025, 08:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-39980 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-39980: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: nexthop: Forbid FDB status change while nexthop is in a group The kernel forbids the creation of non-FDB nexthop groups with FDB nexthops: # ip nexthop add id 1 via 192.0.2.1 fdb # ip nexthop add id 2 group 1 Error: Non FDB nexthop group cannot have fdb nexthops. And vice versa: # ip nexthop add id 3 via 192.0.2.2 dev dummy1 # ip nexthop add id 4 group 3 fdb Error: FDB nexthop group can only have fdb nexthops. However, as long as no routes are pointing to a non-FDB nexthop group, the kernel allows changing the type of a nexthop from FDB to non-FDB and vice versa: # ip nexthop add id 5 via 192.0.2.2 dev dummy1 # ip nexthop add id 6 group 5 # ip nexthop replace id 5 via 192.0.2.2 fdb # echo $? 0 This configuration is invalid and can result in a NPD [1] since FDB nexthops are not associated with a nexthop device: # ip route add 198.51.100.1/32 nhid 6 # ping 198.51.100.1 Fix by preventing nexthop FDB status change while the nexthop is in a group: # ip nexthop add id 7 via 192.0.2.2 dev dummy1 # ip nexthop add id 8 group 7 # ip nexthop replace id 7 via 192.0.2.2 fdb Error: Cannot change nexthop FDB status while in a group. [1] BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 00000000000003c0 [...] Oops: Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP CPU: 6 UID: 0 PID: 367 Comm: ping Not tainted 6.17.0-rc6-virtme-gb65678cacc03 #1 PREEMPT(voluntary) Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS 1.17.0-4.fc41 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:fib_lookup_good_nhc+0x1e/0x80 [...] Call Trace: <TASK> fib_table_lookup+0x541/0x650 ip_route_output_key_hash_rcu+0x2ea/0x970 ip_route_output_key_hash+0x55/0x80 __ip4_datagram_connect+0x250/0x330 udp_connect+0x2b/0x60 __sys_connect+0x9c/0xd0 __x64_sys_connect+0x18/0x20 do_syscall_64+0xa4/0x2a0 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x4b/0x53

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-39980

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-39980 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-2025-39980

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-39980.

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-2025-39980, 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-2025-39980, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-39980 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-39980 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-39980 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-39980 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-39980: 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...