VulnerabilityPublished 2 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-57778: Digilent DASYLab · Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input

Affects Digilent DASYLabSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.8 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.8High

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:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H

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

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 2 Sep 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
Digilent DASYLab	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of patches, European organizations should implement several targeted mitigations: 1) Enforce strict file handling policies restricting the opening of DSB files from untrusted or unknown sources. 2) Educate users, especially those in engineering and research roles, about the risks of opening unsolicited or suspicious DSB files and train them to recognize phishing attempts. 3) Employ application whitelisting and sandboxing techniques to limit the execution context of DASYLab, reducing the impact of potential code execution. 4) Monitor network and endpoint activity for anomalous behavior indicative of exploitation attempts, such as unexpected process launches or memory corruption indicators. 5) Coordinate with Digilent for timely updates and patches, and plan for rapid deployment once available. 6) Consider isolating systems running DASYLab from critical networks to contain potential breaches. 7) Use endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to detect exploitation attempts targeting this vulnerability. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on the specific attack vector (malicious DSB files) and the operational context of DASYLab.

Description

There is an out of bounds write vulnerability due to improper bounds checking resulting in an invalid source address when parsing a DSB file with Digilent DASYLab. This vulnerability may result in arbitrary code execution. Successful exploitation requires an attacker to get a user to open a specially crafted DSB file. The vulnerability affects all versions of DASYLab.

Impact

For European organizations using Digilent DASYLab, particularly in industrial, research, or engineering environments where data acquisition and control are critical, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary code execution, allowing attackers to compromise system confidentiality, integrity, and availability. This could result in theft or manipulation of sensitive data, disruption of operational processes, or deployment of malware within critical infrastructure. Since DASYLab is often used in scientific and industrial contexts, an exploit could impact manufacturing processes, laboratory experiments, or control systems, potentially causing operational downtime or safety hazards. The requirement for user interaction (opening a malicious file) suggests that phishing or social engineering campaigns could be effective attack vectors. The lack of available patches increases the window of exposure, making timely mitigation essential. Additionally, the vulnerability could be leveraged as an initial foothold in a broader attack chain targeting European organizations with industrial or research operations.

CWE-1285Improper Validation of Specified Index, Position, or Offset in Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to specify an index, position, or offset into an indexable resource such as a buffer or file, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the specified index/position/offset has the required properties.
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.
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

ni.com/en/support/security/available-critical-and-security-updates-for-ni-software/memory-corruption-vulnerabilities-in-digilent-dasylab.html (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 2 Sep 2025, 18:48 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1285

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats