CVE-2025-52432VulnerabilityPublished 3 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-52432: QNAP Systems QTS · CWE-476

Affects QNAP Systems QTSSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium : upgrade to 5.3.0 when convenient.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

5.1Medium

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 5.3.0

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:H/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: High: The attacker requires privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable system allowing full access to the vulnerable system’s settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the Vulnerable System are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 Oct 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 2026-10-25.

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

Upgrade QNAP Systems QTS to 5.3.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
QNAP Systems Inc. QTS	Affected >=5.2.0 <5.3.0	Fixed in 5.3.0

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize updating affected QNAP QTS systems to the patched versions: QTS 5.2.6.3195 build 20250715 or later, and QuTS hero h5.2.6.3195 build 20250715 or h5.3.0.3192 build 20250716 or later. Beyond patching, organizations should enforce strong administrative access controls, including multi-factor authentication (MFA) for administrator accounts to reduce the risk of credential compromise. Regularly auditing and monitoring administrative access logs can help detect unauthorized access attempts early. Network segmentation should be implemented to limit exposure of QNAP devices to untrusted networks, ideally restricting management interfaces to internal networks or VPN access only. Additionally, organizations should conduct regular vulnerability assessments and penetration testing to identify potential weaknesses in their QNAP deployments. Backup strategies should be reviewed and tested to ensure rapid recovery in case of service disruption. Finally, educating administrators on secure password practices and phishing awareness can further reduce the risk of initial access by attackers.

Description

A NULL pointer dereference vulnerability has been reported to affect several QNAP operating system versions. If a remote attacker gains an administrator account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to launch a denial-of-service (DoS) attack. We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following versions: QTS 5.2.6.3195 build 20250715 and later and later QuTS hero h5.2.6.3195 build 20250715 and later QuTS hero h5.3.0.3192 build 20250716 and later

Impact

For European organizations using QNAP QTS 5.2.x systems, this vulnerability presents a risk primarily to system availability. QNAP NAS devices are commonly used for data storage, backup, and file sharing in small to medium enterprises and some larger organizations. A successful exploitation could lead to service disruption, loss of access to critical data, and operational downtime. This could impact business continuity, especially for organizations relying on QNAP devices for centralized storage or as part of their IT infrastructure. While the vulnerability requires prior administrator access, which limits the attack surface, the risk remains significant if credential compromise occurs through phishing, weak passwords, or insider threats. The DoS condition could also be leveraged as part of a broader attack to distract or disrupt IT operations. Given the importance of data availability and integrity in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and public administration across Europe, the vulnerability could have cascading effects if exploited. However, the lack of known exploits and the availability of patches reduce the immediate threat level.

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

qnap.com/en/security-advisory/qsa-25-36 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Oct 2025, 18:32 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-476

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats