VulnerabilityPublished 11 Feb 2026Updated 2 Apr 2026

CVE-2025-46305: Apple iOS and iPadOS · Memory Buffer Overflow

Affects Apple iOS and iPadOSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.7 Medium : upgrade to 26.2 or 18.7.5 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.7Medium

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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 26.2, 18.7.5, 15.7.4 +1

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 11 Feb 2026
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 iOS and iPadOS to 26.2 or 18.7.5; macOS to 26.2, 15.7.4 or 14.8.4; tvOS and visionOS and watchOS to 26.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
AppleiOS and iPadOS	Affected <26.2	Fixed in 26.2
AppleiOS and iPadOS	Affected <18.7.5	Fixed in 18.7.5
ApplemacOS	Affected <26.2	Fixed in 26.2
ApplemacOS	Affected <15.7.4	Fixed in 15.7.4
ApplemacOS	Affected <14.8.4	Fixed in 14.8.4
AppletvOS	Affected <26.2	Fixed in 26.2

AI-suggested

Organizations should prioritize updating affected Apple devices to the patched versions: iOS 18.7.5, iPadOS 18.7.5, macOS Sequoia 15.7.4, and corresponding updates for other Apple OSes. Beyond patching, organizations should implement strict controls on physical and logical access to devices, limiting the introduction of untrusted HID devices. Employ device management policies that restrict or monitor USB and Bluetooth peripherals, and consider endpoint security solutions capable of detecting anomalous HID behavior. User training is important to raise awareness about the risks of connecting unknown peripherals. Network segmentation and limiting adjacent network access can reduce exposure to malicious HID devices that communicate over wireless protocols. Regularly audit device inventories and peripheral usage to detect unauthorized hardware. Finally, monitor system logs for unusual process crashes that could indicate attempted exploitation.

Description

The issue was addressed with improved bounds checks. This issue is fixed in iOS 18.7.5 and iPadOS 18.7.5, iOS 26.2 and iPadOS 26.2, macOS Sequoia 15.7.4, macOS Sonoma 14.8.4, macOS Tahoe 26.2, tvOS 26.2, visionOS 26.2, watchOS 26.2. A malicious HID device may cause an unexpected process crash.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-46305 is denial of service through unexpected process crashes on affected Apple devices. For organizations, this could lead to temporary disruption of critical applications or services running on iOS or iPadOS devices, potentially affecting productivity or operational continuity. Since the vulnerability requires user interaction and a malicious HID device physically connected or logically connected via an adjacent network, remote exploitation is limited but not impossible in environments where such devices can be introduced. There is no direct impact on confidentiality or integrity, so data breaches or unauthorized data modification are not concerns here. However, repeated crashes could degrade user trust and device reliability. In high-security or sensitive environments, such denial of service could be leveraged as part of a broader attack chain or to cause distraction during other malicious activities. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits post-disclosure.

CWE-119Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary. This may result in read or write operations on unexpected memory locations that could be linked to other variables, data structures, or internal program data.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
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
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
MIME Conversion (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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Apr 2026, 02:44 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-119

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats