CVE-2025-29871VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-29871: QNAP Systems File Station 5 · CWE-125

Affects QNAP Systems File Station 5Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.4 Low : upgrade to 5.6.0 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.4Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.6.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:P/VC:L/VI:N/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 6 Jun 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 2026-10-25.

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 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

Upgrade QNAP Systems File Station 5 to 5.6.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
QNAP Systems Inc. File Station 5	Affected >=5.5.0 <5.6.0	Fixed in 5.6.0

AI-suggested

1. Immediately upgrade all QNAP File Station 5 installations to version 5.5.6.4847 or later to apply the official patch that fixes the out-of-bounds read vulnerability. 2. Restrict administrator access to NAS devices strictly on a need-to-know basis and enforce strong authentication mechanisms such as multi-factor authentication to reduce the risk of credential compromise. 3. Monitor and audit administrator activities on NAS devices to detect any unusual access patterns or attempts to access sensitive data. 4. Implement network segmentation to isolate NAS devices from general user networks, limiting local access to trusted administrators only. 5. Regularly review and update NAS device firmware and software to ensure all security patches are applied promptly. 6. Conduct internal security awareness training to reduce insider threat risks and encourage reporting of suspicious activities. 7. Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) solutions on systems that access NAS devices to detect potential lateral movement or privilege misuse.

Description

An out-of-bounds read vulnerability has been reported to affect File Station 5. If a local attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to obtain secret data. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: File Station 5 5.5.6.4847 and later

Impact

For European organizations using QNAP NAS devices with File Station 5 versions 5.5.x prior to 5.5.6.4847, this vulnerability poses a limited but tangible risk. Since exploitation requires local administrator access, the primary impact is on confidentiality if an insider threat or attacker who has compromised admin credentials attempts to extract sensitive data from the NAS device memory. This could include sensitive corporate documents, credentials, or other confidential files managed via File Station. The vulnerability does not allow remote exploitation or privilege escalation, so the attack surface is limited to already compromised systems. However, given the widespread use of QNAP NAS devices in small and medium enterprises across Europe for file storage and sharing, the vulnerability could be leveraged as part of a multi-stage attack or insider threat scenario. The low CVSS score reflects the limited scope and difficulty of exploitation, but organizations should not ignore the risk of data leakage in environments where sensitive data is stored on vulnerable versions. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate urgency but patching is recommended to prevent future exploitation.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-25-16 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2025, 04:26 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats