VulnerabilityPublished 9 Jul 2025Updated 22 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-49604: ameba-arduino-d · Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Affects ameba-arduino-dSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 3.1.9 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 31% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.1.9

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: 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 9 Jul 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

Upgrade ameba-aiot/ameba-arduino-d to 3.1.9.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubameba-aiot/ameba-arduino-d`pkg:github/ameba-aiot/ameba-arduino-d`Other threats	Affected <3.1.9	Fixed in 3.1.9

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

AI-suggested

Inventory and identify all devices using Realtek AmebaD chipsets within the organization’s network, especially those running Ameba-AIoT ameba-arduino-d firmware versions prior to 3.1.9 or ameba-rtos-d before the specified commit.
Monitor vendor communications and security advisories for official patches or firmware updates addressing CVE-2025-49604 and apply them promptly once available.
Implement network segmentation to isolate IoT devices from critical IT infrastructure, limiting potential lateral movement in case of compromise.
Restrict wireless access to IoT devices by enforcing strong Wi-Fi security protocols, using WPA3 where possible, and limiting device connectivity to trusted networks.
Employ intrusion detection systems (IDS) and anomaly detection tools tuned to detect unusual Wi-Fi frame fragmentation or malformed packets that could indicate exploitation attempts.
Regularly audit and update device firmware to the latest secure versions, and consider disabling unnecessary wireless features or services on IoT devices to reduce attack surface.
For devices that cannot be updated immediately, consider temporary compensating controls such as reducing wireless signal range or employing physical security controls to limit attacker proximity.

Description

For Realtek AmebaD devices, a heap-based buffer overflow was discovered in Ameba-AIoT ameba-arduino-d before version 3.1.9 and ameba-rtos-d before commit c2bfd8216a1cbc19ad2ab5f48f372ecea756d67a on 2025/07/03. In the WLAN driver defragment function, lack of validation of the size of fragmented Wi-Fi frames may lead to a heap-based buffer overflow.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on the deployment of Realtek AmebaD-based IoT devices within their infrastructure. Industries such as manufacturing, smart building management, healthcare, and critical infrastructure that utilize IoT sensors, controllers, or wireless devices with these chipsets could face risks of device compromise or disruption. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to device memory, potentially allowing attackers to manipulate device behavior, exfiltrate sensitive data, or disrupt operations. Given the medium severity and the requirement for low privileges, attackers might leverage this vulnerability as a foothold within internal networks or to pivot to other systems. The lack of user interaction and network-based attack vector increases the risk in environments with wireless connectivity. European organizations with extensive IoT deployments should be particularly vigilant, as compromised devices could undermine operational technology security and data integrity. However, the absence of known exploits in the wild and the medium CVSS score suggest the immediate risk is moderate but warrants proactive mitigation.

CWE-122Heap-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #16
A heap overflow condition is a buffer overflow, where the buffer that can be overwritten is allocated in the heap portion of memory, generally meaning that the buffer was allocated using a routine such as malloc().
Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
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
Forced Integer Overflow (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 23 Sep 2025, 00:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-122

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats