VulnerabilityPublished 14 Apr 2025Updated 23 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-3549: 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, 09:15 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 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 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 =5.4.3	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-3549, European organizations should: 1) Immediately audit their software environments to identify any use of Assimp version 5.4.3, particularly in applications processing MD3 files. 2) Restrict local access to systems running vulnerable software to trusted users only, minimizing the risk of local exploitation. 3) Implement strict input validation and sandboxing for any 3D model files loaded by applications using Assimp, ensuring untrusted files are not processed without proper isolation. 4) Monitor for unusual application crashes or behavior in software utilizing Assimp, as these may indicate exploitation attempts. 6) Employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to detect potential local privilege escalation or heap overflow exploitation techniques. 7) Educate developers and system administrators about the risks of processing untrusted 3D assets and enforce the principle of least privilege on affected systems. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling local access, input validation, and proactive monitoring specific to the vulnerability context.

Description

A vulnerability, which was classified as critical, was found in Open Asset Import Library Assimp 5.4.3. Affected is the function Assimp::MD3Importer::ValidateSurfaceHeaderOffsets of the file code/AssetLib/MD3/MD3Loader.cpp of the component File Handler. The manipulation leads to heap-based buffer overflow. The attack needs to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-3549 depends largely on their use of Assimp 5.4.3 within their software stack. Organizations involved in game development, 3D modeling, CAD, and simulation industries that process MD3 files could face risks of local privilege escalation or application crashes, potentially disrupting development workflows or production environments. While the vulnerability requires local access and low privileges, insider threats or compromised user accounts could exploit this flaw to escalate privileges or execute arbitrary code, leading to data breaches or system compromise. The medium CVSS score reflects limited remote exploitation potential; however, the risk remains significant in environments where users run untrusted 3D assets or where multiple users share systems. Critical infrastructure or defense contractors using Assimp for visualization or simulation may face operational disruptions or targeted attacks leveraging this vulnerability. Additionally, the lack of an official patch at the time of disclosure increases exposure. European organizations with strict data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR) must consider the risk of data integrity and availability impacts, especially if this vulnerability is exploited to disrupt services or corrupt data processing pipelines involving 3D assets.

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