CVE-2025-29874VulnerabilityPublished 29 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-29874: QNAP Systems File Station 5 · CWE-476

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, 06:26 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 39% 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 29 Aug 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 2026-10-26.

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

European organizations should prioritize updating File Station 5 to version 5.5.6.4907 or later to remediate the vulnerability. Beyond patching, organizations should implement strict access controls and monitoring on QNAP NAS devices to limit user account creation and privilege escalation. Employing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for NAS user accounts can reduce the risk of credential compromise. Regularly auditing user accounts and permissions will help detect unauthorized access. Network segmentation and firewall rules should restrict access to NAS management interfaces to trusted internal networks or VPNs. Implementing anomaly detection and logging on NAS devices can help identify unusual access patterns or potential exploitation attempts. Additionally, organizations should conduct user awareness training to prevent credential theft via phishing. Backup strategies should be reviewed to ensure data availability in case of service disruption. Finally, organizations should monitor QNAP security advisories and threat intelligence feeds for any emerging exploits related to 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 5.5.6.4907 and later

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability centers on the availability of QNAP NAS devices running File Station 5. Many enterprises, SMBs, and even some public sector entities in Europe rely on QNAP NAS solutions for centralized file storage and sharing. A successful DoS attack could disrupt access to critical files and data, impacting productivity and potentially delaying business operations. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise data confidentiality or integrity, the denial of service could indirectly affect service-level agreements and operational resilience. Organizations using QNAP NAS in sectors such as finance, healthcare, education, and government could face operational disruptions if attackers exploit this flaw. The requirement for attacker authentication limits the risk to environments where user credentials are compromised or weakly protected. However, insider threats or credential theft via phishing or other means could enable exploitation. Given the widespread use of QNAP devices in Europe, especially in small and medium enterprises, the threat is relevant and warrants timely remediation to maintain service availability and operational 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-25-19 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 29 Aug 2025, 17:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-476

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats