VulnerabilityPublished 6 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-29873: QNAP Systems File Station 5 · NULL Pointer Dereference

Affects QNAP Systems File Station 5Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium : upgrade to 5.6.0 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 5.6.0

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: Low
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: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: 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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to 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 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

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

European organizations should take the following specific and practical steps to mitigate the risk posed by CVE-2025-29873: 1) Immediate patching: Upgrade all QNAP File Station 5 installations to version 5.5.6.4847 or later to eliminate the vulnerability. 2) User account management: Enforce strong password policies and implement multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all user accounts accessing QNAP NAS devices to reduce the risk of account compromise. 3) Network segmentation: Restrict access to QNAP NAS devices to trusted networks and users only, using firewalls and VPNs to limit exposure to the internet or untrusted networks. 4) Monitoring and logging: Enable detailed logging on QNAP devices and monitor for unusual login patterns or repeated failed access attempts that could indicate credential abuse or reconnaissance. 5) Access control review: Regularly audit user accounts and permissions on QNAP NAS systems to remove unnecessary or inactive accounts, minimizing the attack surface. 6) Incident response preparedness: Develop and test incident response plans that include scenarios involving NAS service disruption to ensure rapid recovery and continuity. 7) Backup validation: Maintain and verify regular backups of critical data stored on QNAP devices to mitigate the impact of potential service outages. These measures go beyond generic advice by emphasizing account security, network controls, and operational readiness tailored to the specific nature of this vulnerability.

Description

A NULL pointer dereference vulnerability has been reported to affect File Station 5. If a remote attacker gains a user account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to launch a denial-of-service (DoS) attack. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: File Station 5 5.5.6.4847 and later

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability centers on potential disruption of file management services hosted on QNAP NAS devices running File Station 5. A successful DoS attack could interrupt business operations reliant on file access and sharing, leading to productivity losses and potential operational delays. While the vulnerability does not directly expose sensitive data or allow privilege escalation, the denial of service could indirectly affect incident response, backup processes, or other critical workflows dependent on the NAS. Organizations with remote users or third-party access to QNAP NAS devices are at increased risk, as attackers only need a valid user account to exploit the flaw remotely. This risk is heightened in environments where user credentials are weak, reused, or compromised. Additionally, sectors with stringent availability requirements, such as healthcare, finance, and critical infrastructure, may experience significant operational impact if services are disrupted. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently reduces immediate risk, but the medium severity and ease of exploitation warrant proactive mitigation. Given the popularity of QNAP devices in Europe, especially among SMBs and enterprises seeking cost-effective storage solutions, the threat is relevant and should be addressed promptly to maintain service continuity.

CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #13OWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Requirements
Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (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, 04:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-476

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats