VulnerabilityPublished 30 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-53022: TrustedFirmware-M · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.6 High · fixed in 2.1.3 : patch affected systems soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.6High

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 40% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.1.3

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

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

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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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: 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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 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

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately verify the versions of TrustedFirmware-M deployed in their embedded devices and ensure they are updated to at least version 2.1.3 or 2.2.1, where this vulnerability is fixed. Firmware upgrade processes should be hardened by implementing strict validation of TLV length fields before processing. Additionally, employing secure boot mechanisms that verify firmware signatures and integrity prior to upgrade can prevent unauthorized or malformed images from being accepted. Device manufacturers should provide updated firmware images and patches, and organizations must establish secure firmware update channels with cryptographic protections. For devices already deployed, network segmentation and monitoring of firmware upgrade traffic can help detect and block malicious upgrade attempts. Where possible, runtime protections such as stack canaries and control flow integrity should be enabled to mitigate exploitation impact. Finally, organizations should conduct thorough security testing of firmware upgrade components to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities proactively.

Description

TrustedFirmware-M (aka Trusted Firmware for M profile Arm CPUs) before 2.1.3 and 2.2.x before 2.2.1 lacks length validation during a firmware upgrade. While processing a new image, the Firmware Upgrade (FWU) module does not validate the length field of the Type-Length-Value (TLV) structure for dependent components against the maximum allowed size. If the length specified in the TLV exceeds the size of the buffer allocated on the stack, the FWU module will overwrite the buffer (and potentially other stack data) with the TLV's value content. An attacker could exploit this by crafting a malicious TLV entry in the unprotected section of the MCUBoot upgrade image. By setting the length field to exceed the expected structure size, the attacker can manipulate the stack memory of the system during the upgrade process.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a serious threat to embedded systems and IoT devices that rely on TrustedFirmware-M for secure boot and firmware upgrades. Many industrial control systems, automotive ECUs, medical devices, and critical infrastructure components in Europe use Arm Cortex-M based microcontrollers with TrustedFirmware-M. Exploitation could allow attackers to execute arbitrary code during firmware updates, potentially leading to device bricking, persistent malware implantation, or disruption of critical services. This could impact sectors such as manufacturing, healthcare, automotive, and energy, where embedded devices are integral. The compromise of firmware integrity undermines the trustworthiness of device operation and can facilitate further lateral movement or sabotage. Given the increasing reliance on connected embedded devices in European critical infrastructure and industry, the vulnerability could have cascading effects on operational continuity and safety.

CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
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…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 30 Jul 2025, 19:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-121

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats