VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2025Updated 2 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-46707: Imagination Technologies Graphics DDK · Resource Exposure

Affects Imagination Technologies Graphics DDKSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.2 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.2Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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 on the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Jun 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 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Imagination Technologies Graphics DDK	Affected =1.15 =1.17 =1.18	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of published patches, European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Restrict GPU passthrough or sharing to only trusted and fully controlled guest VMs, minimizing exposure to untrusted or less secure tenants. 2) Employ strict access controls and monitoring on virtualized environments to detect anomalous GPU usage or firmware state changes. 3) Use hypervisor-level security features to enforce stronger isolation between guest VMs and host firmware, such as updated virtualization extensions or firmware validation mechanisms. 4) Coordinate with Imagination Technologies for timely patch deployment once available and prioritize updating affected Graphics DDK versions. 5) Consider disabling GPU passthrough in high-risk environments until a fix is applied. 6) Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focusing on GPU virtualization components to identify potential exploitation attempts. 7) Maintain up-to-date inventory of affected software versions across the organization to ensure rapid response.

Description

Software installed and running inside a Guest VM may override Firmware's state and gain access to the GPU.

Impact

For European organizations, especially those relying on virtualized infrastructure with GPU passthrough or shared GPU resources—such as cloud service providers, research institutions, and enterprises using GPU-accelerated workloads—this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to GPU resources from within guest VMs. This may result in leakage of sensitive graphical or computational data, compromise of integrity of GPU operations, or potential lateral movement within virtualized environments. While the confidentiality and integrity impact is limited, the breach of isolation boundaries can undermine trust in multi-tenant environments and may facilitate further attacks. Organizations in sectors like finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure that use GPU-accelerated virtual machines for data processing or AI workloads could be particularly concerned. The lack of availability impact reduces the risk of service disruption, but the potential for data exposure and integrity compromise remains significant in sensitive contexts.

CWE-668Exposure of Resource to Wrong Sphere (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product exposes a resource to the wrong control sphere, providing unintended actors with inappropriate access to the resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

imaginationtech.com/gpu-driver-vulnerabilities/ (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 2 Jul 2025, 14:55 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-668

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats