VulnerabilityPublished 7 Aug 2025Updated 29 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-50952: NULL Pointer Dereference

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:08 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% 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:L/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: 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: 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 7 Aug 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

AI-suggested

1. Monitor official openjpeg repositories and security advisories for patches addressing CVE-2025-50952 and apply updates promptly once available. 2. Implement strict input validation and sanitization on all JPEG 2000 image inputs to detect and block malformed or suspicious files before processing. 3. Limit exposure of services that utilize openjpeg by restricting access to trusted networks and employing network segmentation to reduce attack surface. 4. Employ runtime application self-protection (RASP) or memory safety tools to detect and prevent NULL pointer dereference crashes during image processing. 5. Conduct thorough testing of image processing workflows with fuzzing tools to identify and mitigate similar vulnerabilities proactively. 6. For critical systems, consider temporary workarounds such as disabling JPEG 2000 support if feasible until patches are applied. 7. Maintain comprehensive logging and monitoring to detect anomalous crashes or service disruptions indicative of exploitation attempts. 8. Educate development and operations teams about the vulnerability to ensure rapid response and remediation.

Description

openjpeg v 2.5.0 was discovered to contain a NULL pointer dereference via the component /openjp2/dwt.c.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-50952 is primarily related to potential denial of service conditions caused by application crashes when processing maliciously crafted JPEG 2000 images. This could disrupt services that rely on openjpeg for image decoding, such as digital media platforms, medical imaging systems, and telecommunications infrastructure. Confidentiality and integrity impacts are limited but possible if the crash leads to memory corruption exploitable in complex attack scenarios. The vulnerability’s remote exploitability without authentication increases risk, especially for internet-facing services processing user-supplied images. However, the absence of known exploits and the medium severity rating suggest that immediate risk is moderate. European sectors with heavy use of openjpeg, including healthcare, media, and software development, should prioritize vulnerability management to avoid operational disruptions. Failure to address this vulnerability could lead to service outages, reputational damage, and potential regulatory scrutiny under data protection laws if service availability is impacted.

CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #13OWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Requirements
Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 31 Dec 2025, 00:07 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-476

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats