CVE-2025-33194VulnerabilityPublished 25 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-33194: NVIDIA DGX Spark · Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before Canonicalize

Affects NVIDIA DGX SparkSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.7Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 4% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component 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 remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 Nov 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

AI-suggested

1. Apply the official OTA0 firmware update from NVIDIA as soon as it becomes available to remediate the vulnerability. 2. Restrict local access to DGX Spark systems strictly to authorized personnel and enforce strong physical and network access controls. 3. Monitor system logs and firmware behavior for anomalies indicative of exploitation attempts or unexpected input processing errors. 4. Implement network segmentation to isolate DGX Spark nodes from less trusted network zones, minimizing the risk of local exploitation via lateral movement. 5. Conduct regular security audits and firmware integrity checks to detect unauthorized modifications. 6. Educate system administrators and operators about the vulnerability and the importance of timely patching. 7. Coordinate with NVIDIA support for guidance on interim mitigations if patch deployment is delayed. 8. Consider deploying host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) tailored to detect unusual activity on DGX Spark firmware components.

Description

NVIDIA DGX Spark GB10 contains a vulnerability in SROOT firmware, where an attacker could cause improper processing of input data. A successful exploit of this vulnerability might lead to information disclosure or denial of service.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing NVIDIA DGX Spark systems, this vulnerability poses a risk of limited information disclosure and denial of service, potentially disrupting critical AI and HPC workloads. Although the attack requires local access, compromised internal systems or insider threats could exploit this flaw to degrade system availability or leak sensitive data processed by DGX Spark nodes. This could impact research institutions, technology companies, and data centers relying on these platforms. The medium severity indicates moderate risk, but the strategic importance of AI infrastructure in Europe elevates the operational impact. Disruptions could delay AI model training, data analysis, or other compute-intensive tasks, affecting business continuity and competitive advantage. Confidentiality impact, while limited, could expose proprietary datasets or model parameters. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often develop exploits post-disclosure.

CWE-180Incorrect Behavior Order: Validate Before Canonicalize (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The product validates input before it is canonicalized, which prevents the product from detecting data that becomes invalid after the canonicalization step.
Implementation · Input Validation
Inputs should be decoded and canonicalized to the application's current internal representation before being validated (CWE-180). Make sure that the application does not decode the same input twice (CWE-174).
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
Leverage Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Leading 'Ghost' Character Sequences to Bypass Input Filters (opens in a new tab)
Using Unicode Encoding to Bypass Validation Logic (opens in a new tab)
Using Escaped Slashes in Alternate Encoding (opens in a new tab)
Using Slashes in Alternate Encoding (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 2 Dec 2025, 18:52 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-180

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats