VulnerabilityPublished 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-50681: igmpproxy · CVE-2025-50681 is a high-severity

Affects igmpproxySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 44% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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: 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 19 Dec 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
GitHubpali/igmpproxy`pkg:github/pali/igmpproxy`Other threats	Affected–	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Organizations should first identify all devices running vulnerable versions of igmpproxy, especially embedded routers, media gateways, and IoT devices handling multicast traffic. Since no official patches are currently linked, network administrators should monitor vendor advisories for updates or firmware releases addressing this issue. In the interim, network segmentation can limit exposure by isolating multicast traffic and restricting access to devices running igmpproxy from untrusted or less secure network segments. Implementing strict multicast traffic filtering and validation at network ingress points can help block malformed IGMPv3 packets that could trigger the vulnerability. Network intrusion detection systems (NIDS) should be configured to alert on suspicious IGMPv3 membership reports. Device hardening practices, including disabling unnecessary multicast services where possible, can reduce the attack surface. Regularly updating device firmware and maintaining an inventory of IoT devices will facilitate timely remediation once patches become available. Finally, organizations should prepare incident response plans to quickly address potential denial-of-service incidents affecting multicast services.

Description

CVE-2025-50681 is a high-severity vulnerability in igmpproxy versions before commit 2b30c36 that allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via crafted IGMPv3 membership report packets. The flaw arises from insufficient validation in the recv_igmp() function, leading to a NULL pointer dereference when processing malformed multicast traffic. This can crash the igmpproxy application, which is commonly used in embedded networking devices such as home routers and media gateways. Exploitation requires no authentication or user interaction and can be executed remotely over a LAN. While no known exploits are currently in the wild, unpatched devices remain at risk. The vulnerability impacts availability but does not affect confidentiality or integrity. European organizations relying on affected IoT and networking devices for IPTV or multicast streaming services should prioritize patching or mitigating this issue to prevent service disruption.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact is the disruption of multicast traffic services such as IPTV and streaming that rely on igmpproxy-enabled devices. Denial of service can lead to network outages or degraded service quality, affecting business operations, customer experience, and potentially critical communications in enterprise or service provider environments. The vulnerability affects embedded devices commonly used in home and small office networks, which are often less rigorously managed, increasing the risk of exploitation. In sectors like telecommunications, media, and utilities that use multicast streaming extensively, service interruptions could have broader operational and reputational consequences. Additionally, the attack can be launched remotely over LAN without authentication, making it easier for internal or adjacent network attackers to cause disruption. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly impacted, availability degradation can indirectly affect business continuity and service-level agreements. Organizations with large deployments of vulnerable IoT or networking devices should consider this a significant risk to network stability.

CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
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
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (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 26 Dec 2025, 15:22 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats