VulnerabilityPublished 29 May 2025

CVE-2025-5331: PCMan FTP Server · Buffer Overflow

Affects PCMan FTP ServerSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 15:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

6.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 55% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
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: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to 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 29 May 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubr3ng4f/PCMan_1`pkg:github/r3ng4f/PCMan_1`Other threats	Affected =2.0.7	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Immediate mitigation should include restricting external network access to the PCMan FTP Server, ideally limiting connections to trusted internal networks or VPNs.
Disable or restrict the use of the NLST command if possible, or configure the FTP server to limit command input sizes to prevent buffer overflow conditions.
Monitor network traffic for unusual or malformed NLST commands that could indicate exploitation attempts.
Employ network-level protections such as Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) or Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS) with custom rules to detect and block exploit attempts targeting the NLST command.
Regularly audit and inventory FTP server versions across the organization to identify and isolate vulnerable instances.
Engage with the vendor or community to obtain patches or updates as soon as they become available and plan for prompt deployment.
Consider migrating to more secure file transfer protocols (e.g., SFTP or FTPS) that provide encryption and improved security controls.
Implement robust logging and alerting on FTP servers to detect anomalous activities early.
Educate IT staff about this vulnerability and ensure incident response plans include steps for potential exploitation scenarios.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in PCMan FTP Server 2.0.7 and classified as critical. This vulnerability affects unknown code of the component NLST Command Handler. The manipulation leads to buffer overflow. The attack can be initiated remotely. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability can be significant, especially for those relying on PCMan FTP Server 2.0.7 for file transfer services. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive files, disruption of file transfer services, or full compromise of the underlying server system. This could result in data breaches, operational downtime, and potential lateral movement within networks. Given the FTP server's role in transferring files, confidentiality and integrity of data are at risk. Organizations in sectors such as finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and government, where FTP servers are used for critical file exchanges, could face operational and reputational damage. Additionally, the vulnerability's remote exploitability without authentication increases the attack surface, especially if the FTP server is exposed to the internet. European organizations with less mature patch management or legacy systems may be particularly vulnerable. The absence of a patch at the time of disclosure necessitates immediate risk mitigation to prevent exploitation. Furthermore, compliance with European data protection regulations (e.g., GDPR) could be jeopardized if data confidentiality is compromised due to this vulnerability.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 21:10 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats