CVE-2025-3548VulnerabilityPublished 14 Apr 2025Updated 23 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-3548: Open Asset Import Library Assimp · Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Affects Open Asset Import Library AssimpSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

4.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 20% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Base metrics

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

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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: 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: 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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact to 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.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 14 Apr 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubassimp/assimp`pkg:github/assimp/assimp`Other threats	Affected =5.4.0 =5.4.1 =5.4.2 =5.4.3	Fixed in–

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Immediate application of vendor patches or updates to Assimp versions beyond 5.4.3 once available is the primary mitigation step. 2. If patches are not yet available, restrict local access to systems running vulnerable Assimp versions, enforcing strict user privilege separation and endpoint security controls. 3. Employ runtime protections such as heap memory protection mechanisms (e.g., ASLR, DEP) and enable compiler-level mitigations if compiling Assimp from source. 4. Conduct thorough code audits and static analysis on applications embedding Assimp to identify potential misuse or unsafe handling of asset imports. 5. Implement monitoring and alerting for anomalous local activity that could indicate exploitation attempts, including unusual process behavior or memory corruption signals. 6. Educate developers and system administrators about the vulnerability and the importance of controlling local access, especially in shared or multi-user environments. 7. Consider sandboxing or containerizing applications that use Assimp to limit the blast radius of potential exploits. 8. Review and harden endpoint security policies to prevent unauthorized local code execution and privilege escalation.

Description

A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, has been found in Open Asset Import Library Assimp up to 5.4.3. This issue affects the function aiString::Set in the library include/assimp/types.h of the component File Handler. The manipulation leads to heap-based buffer overflow. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. It is recommended to apply a patch to fix this issue.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact depends on the extent to which Assimp is integrated into their software stacks, particularly in industries relying on 3D asset processing such as automotive design, aerospace, gaming, virtual reality, and manufacturing. Exploitation could allow local attackers or malicious insiders to escalate privileges or execute arbitrary code, potentially compromising sensitive design data or disrupting critical workflows. The vulnerability could also be leveraged in multi-user environments or developer workstations to pivot attacks or sabotage production pipelines. Given the local attack vector, the risk is higher in environments with shared access or insufficient endpoint security controls. The medium CVSS score suggests moderate risk, but the critical nature of affected industries in Europe (e.g., automotive hubs in Germany, aerospace in France) means that even local exploits could have outsized operational impacts. Additionally, organizations involved in software development or digital content creation using Assimp must prioritize patching to prevent supply chain risks or insider threats. The lack of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate urgency but does not eliminate the threat, especially as public disclosure may prompt attackers to develop exploits.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 23 Jul 2025, 09:33 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats