VulnerabilityPublished 12 Mar 2025Updated 19 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-25565: SoftEther VPN · Classic Buffer Overflow

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 16:39 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 12 Mar 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should include restricting local access to systems running SoftEther VPN 5.02.5187 to trusted personnel only, minimizing the risk of local exploitation.
Monitor and audit command line usage related to certificate generation functions (PtMakeCert and PtMakeCert2048) to detect anomalous or excessively long input strings that could indicate attempted exploitation.
Implement strict access controls and user permissions to prevent unauthorized users from executing commands that invoke vulnerable functions.
Consider deploying SoftEther VPN in isolated or hardened environments where local user privileges are tightly controlled.
Engage with SoftEther VPN developers or community to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available.
As a longer-term measure, evaluate alternative VPN solutions with active maintenance and security support if patching is delayed.
Employ host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to detect abnormal process behavior or memory corruption attempts related to the VPN service.
Educate system administrators and users about the risks of executing untrusted commands or scripts within the VPN environment.

Description

SoftEther VPN 5.02.5187 is vulnerable to Buffer Overflow in the Command.c file via the PtMakeCert and PtMakeCert2048 functions. NOTE: the Supplier disputes this because the behavior only allows a user to attack himself by typing a long string on a command line.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-25565 could be significant if SoftEther VPN 5.02.5187 is deployed in environments where multiple users have local access or where the VPN server is accessible to untrusted users. Exploitation could lead to full system compromise, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code, steal sensitive data, or disrupt VPN services. This could result in loss of confidentiality of communications, integrity breaches of network traffic, and denial of service, impacting business continuity and regulatory compliance (e.g., GDPR). However, the supplier's claim that exploitation requires self-attack via command line input limits the threat to local users attacking their own session, reducing the risk of remote exploitation. Still, insider threats or compromised local accounts could leverage this vulnerability. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the potential for future attacks. Organizations relying on SoftEther VPN for secure remote access should assess their exposure, especially in multi-tenant or shared environments, and consider the risk of local privilege escalation or lateral movement within their networks.

CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
MIME Conversion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Jul 2025, 20:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats