VulnerabilityPublished 24 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-48511: AMD μProf · Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input

Affects AMD μProfSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% 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:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

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

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: 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 24 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 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-48511, European organizations should implement strict access controls to limit local access to systems running AMD μProf, ensuring only trusted administrators and developers have permissions. Employing robust endpoint security solutions to detect and prevent unauthorized local activities can reduce exploitation risk. Monitoring system logs and performance profiling outputs for anomalies indicative of memory corruption or crashes can provide early warning signs. Until a vendor patch is released, consider restricting or disabling AMD μProf usage on production systems where feasible. Implementing hardware-level protections such as memory protection features and leveraging virtualization isolation can further reduce the impact of arbitrary memory writes. Regularly updating system software and firmware, and maintaining a comprehensive asset inventory to identify AMD μProf deployments, will aid in timely remediation once patches become available. Additionally, educating staff about the risks of local privilege misuse and enforcing least privilege principles will help mitigate insider threats exploiting this vulnerability.

Description

CVE-2025-48511 is a medium severity vulnerability in AMD μProf caused by improper validation of input indices or offsets. It allows a local attacker with limited privileges to write to arbitrary physical memory addresses, potentially causing system crashes or denial of service. The vulnerability does not affect confidentiality or integrity directly and requires local access without user interaction. No known exploits are currently reported in the wild. The vulnerability impacts AMD μProf, a performance profiling tool used primarily by developers and system administrators. European organizations using AMD processors and AMD μProf for performance analysis may face operational disruptions if exploited. Mitigation involves restricting local access to trusted users and monitoring for abnormal system behavior, as no patches are currently available. Countries with significant AMD hardware adoption and strong technology sectors, such as Germany, France, and the UK, are most likely to be affected. The vulnerability’s medium severity reflects its limited scope and the requirement for local privileges but highlights the risk of denial of service in critical environments.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-48511 is the potential for denial of service or system instability caused by arbitrary physical memory writes. This can disrupt operations, particularly in environments where AMD μProf is used for performance monitoring or tuning, such as data centers, research institutions, and enterprises with AMD-based infrastructure. Although the vulnerability does not allow data theft or modification, the availability impact can lead to downtime, loss of productivity, and potential cascading failures in critical systems. Organizations relying on AMD hardware and software tools for performance analysis may face increased risk if local attacker access is possible, such as through compromised internal accounts or insider threats. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the vulnerability should be addressed proactively to prevent future exploitation. The impact is more pronounced in sectors with high dependency on AMD processors and profiling tools, including technology companies, financial services, and manufacturing industries prevalent in Europe.

CWE-1285Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset has the required properties.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

amd.com/en/resources/product-security/bulletin/AMD-SB-9019.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 1 Dec 2025, 21:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1285

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats