CVE-2025-54854VulnerabilityPublished 15 Oct 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-54854: F5 BIG-IP · Out-of-bounds Read

Affects F5 BIG-IPSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% 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 15 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
F5 BIG-IP	Affected =17.5.0 =17.1.0 =16.1.0 =15.1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Organizations should immediately inventory their F5 BIG-IP devices to identify affected versions (15.1.0, 16.1.0, 17.1.0, 17.5.0) with OAuth access profiles configured on virtual servers. Until an official patch is released, consider the following mitigations: 1) Restrict network access to the vulnerable virtual servers by implementing strict firewall rules or network segmentation to limit exposure to untrusted sources. 2) Monitor BIG-IP system logs and the apmd process for abnormal terminations or crashes that may indicate exploitation attempts. 3) Disable or temporarily remove OAuth access profiles on virtual servers if feasible, to eliminate the attack vector. 4) Engage with F5 support for any available workarounds or hotfixes. 5) Implement robust incident response procedures to quickly detect and recover from potential denial-of-service events. 6) Plan for timely patching once F5 releases an official update addressing this vulnerability. Avoid exposing BIG-IP management interfaces or critical virtual servers directly to the internet without additional protective controls such as VPNs or zero-trust access models.

Description

When a BIG-IP APM OAuth access profile (Resource Server or Resource Client) is configured on a virtual server, undisclosed traffic can cause the apmd process to terminate. Note: Software versions which have reached End of Technical Support (EoTS) are not evaluated.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-54854 is denial of service caused by the termination of the apmd process on affected BIG-IP devices. This can disrupt access management and OAuth-based authentication flows, potentially preventing legitimate users from accessing protected resources. Organizations relying on BIG-IP for secure remote access, VPN termination, or API gateway functions may experience service outages or degraded security posture. The vulnerability does not expose confidential data or allow unauthorized access but can significantly impact operational continuity. Large enterprises, cloud providers, and service providers using BIG-IP in their network infrastructure could face downtime, affecting business operations and customer trust. The ease of remote exploitation without authentication increases the risk of automated attacks or scanning by threat actors. Although no known exploits exist yet, the high severity and widespread deployment of BIG-IP devices make this a critical issue to address promptly.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
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)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000156602 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 27 Feb 2026, 05:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats