CVE-2025-40016 Vulnerability Analysis & Exploit Details

CVE-2025-40016
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-2025-40016 Details

Status: Awaiting Analysis

Last updated: 🕢 21 Oct 2025, 19:31 UTC
Originally published on: 🕓 20 Oct 2025, 16:15 UTC

Time between publication and last update: 1 days

CVSS Release:

CVE-2025-40016 Vulnerability Summary

CVE-2025-40016: In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: media: uvcvideo: Mark invalid entities with id UVC_INVALID_ENTITY_ID Per UVC 1.1+ specification 3.7.2, units and terminals must have a non-zero unique ID. ``` Each Unit and Terminal within the video function is assigned a unique identification number, the Unit ID (UID) or Terminal ID (TID), contained in the bUnitID or bTerminalID field of the descriptor. The value 0x00 is reserved for undefined ID, ``` If we add a new entity with id 0 or a duplicated ID, it will be marked as UVC_INVALID_ENTITY_ID. In a previous attempt commit 3dd075fe8ebb ("media: uvcvideo: Require entities to have a non-zero unique ID"), we ignored all the invalid units, this broke a lot of non-compatible cameras. Hopefully we are more lucky this time. This also prevents some syzkaller reproducers from triggering warnings due to a chain of entities referring to themselves. In one particular case, an Output Unit is connected to an Input Unit, both with the same ID of 1. But when looking up for the source ID of the Output Unit, that same entity is found instead of the input entity, which leads to such warnings. In another case, a backward chain was considered finished as the source ID was 0. Later on, that entity was found, but its pads were not valid. Here is a sample stack trace for one of those cases. [ 20.650953] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 2 using dummy_hcd [ 20.830206] usb 1-1: Using ep0 maxpacket: 8 [ 20.833501] usb 1-1: config 0 descriptor?? [ 21.038518] usb 1-1: string descriptor 0 read error: -71 [ 21.038893] usb 1-1: Found UVC 0.00 device <unnamed> (2833:0201) [ 21.039299] uvcvideo 1-1:0.0: Entity type for entity Output 1 was not initialized! [ 21.041583] uvcvideo 1-1:0.0: Entity type for entity Input 1 was not initialized! [ 21.042218] ------------[ cut here ]------------ [ 21.042536] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 9 at drivers/media/mc/mc-entity.c:1147 media_create_pad_link+0x2c4/0x2e0 [ 21.043195] Modules linked in: [ 21.043535] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 9 Comm: kworker/0:1 Not tainted 6.11.0-rc7-00030-g3480e43aeccf #444 [ 21.044101] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.15.0-1 04/01/2014 [ 21.044639] Workqueue: usb_hub_wq hub_event [ 21.045100] RIP: 0010:media_create_pad_link+0x2c4/0x2e0 [ 21.045508] Code: fe e8 20 01 00 00 b8 f4 ff ff ff 48 83 c4 30 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f 5d c3 cc cc cc cc 0f 0b eb e9 0f 0b eb 0a 0f 0b eb 06 <0f> 0b eb 02 0f 0b b8 ea ff ff ff eb d4 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 [ 21.046801] RSP: 0018:ffffc9000004b318 EFLAGS: 00010246 [ 21.047227] RAX: ffff888004e5d458 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: ffffffff818fccf1 [ 21.047719] RDX: 000000000000007b RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff888004313290 [ 21.048241] RBP: ffff888004313290 R08: 0001ffffffffffff R09: 0000000000000000 [ 21.048701] R10: 0000000000000013 R11: 0001888004313290 R12: 0000000000000003 [ 21.049138] R13: ffff888004313080 R14: ffff888004313080 R15: 0000000000000000 [ 21.049648] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88803ec00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 [ 21.050271] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 [ 21.050688] CR2: 0000592cc27635b0 CR3: 000000000431c000 CR4: 0000000000750ef0 [ 21.051136] PKRU: 55555554 [ 21.051331] Call Trace: [ 21.051480] <TASK> [ 21.051611] ? __warn+0xc4/0x210 [ 21.051861] ? media_create_pad_link+0x2c4/0x2e0 [ 21.052252] ? report_bug+0x11b/0x1a0 [ 21.052540] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x31/0x40 [ 21.052901] ? handle_bug+0x3d/0x70 [ 21.053197] ? exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x50 [ 21.053511] ? asm_exc_invalid_op+0x1a/0x20 [ 21.053924] ? media_create_pad_link+0x91/0x2e0 [ 21.054364] ? media_create_pad_link+0x2c4/0x2e0 [ 21.054834] ? media_create_pad_link+0x91/0x2e0 [ 21.055131] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x1e/0x40 [ 21.055441] ? __v4l2_device_register_subdev+0x202/0x210 [ 21.055837] uvc_mc_register_entities+0x358/0x400 [ 21.056144] uvc_register_chains+0x1 ---truncated---

Assessing the Risk of CVE-2025-40016

Access Complexity Graph

The exploitability of CVE-2025-40016 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-2025-40016

No exploitability data is available for CVE-2025-40016.

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-2025-40016, 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-2025-40016, showing how Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability might be affected if the vulnerability is exploited. Higher values usually signal greater potential damage.

  • Confidentiality: None
    CVE-2025-40016 does not compromise confidentiality.
  • Integrity: None
    CVE-2025-40016 does not impact data integrity.
  • Availability: None
    CVE-2025-40016 does not affect system availability.

CVE-2025-40016 References

External References

CWE Common Weakness Enumeration

Unknown

Protect Your Infrastructure against CVE-2025-40016: 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-2025-9558 – There is a potential OOB Write vulnerability in the gen_prov_start function in pb_adv.c. The full length of the received data is copied into the li...
  • CVE-2025-9557 – ‭An out-of-bound write can lead to an arbitrary code execution. Even on devices with some form of memory protection, this can still lead to‬ ‭a cra...
  • CVE-2025-59820 – In KDE Krita before 5.2.13, loading a manipulated TGA file could result in a heap-based buffer overflow in plugins/impex/tga/kis_tga_import.cpp (ak...
  • CVE-2025-55174 – In KDE Skanpage before 25.08.0, an attempt at file overwrite can result in the contents of the new file at the beginning followed by the partial co...
  • CVE-2025-12061 – The TAX SERVICE Electronic HDM WordPress plugin before 1.2.1 does not authorization and CSRF checks in an AJAX action, allowing unauthenticated use...