CVE-2025-6093VulnerabilityPublished 15 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-6093: uYanki board-stm32f103rc-berial · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Affects uYanki board-stm32f103rc-berialSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

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: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 21% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
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: Adjacent: The vulnerable system is bound to a protocol stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared proximity (e.g., Bluetooth, NFC, or IEEE 802.11) or logical network (e.g., local IP subnet), or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN within an administrative network zone).
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: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
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 15 Jun 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

AI-suggested

1. Network Segmentation: Isolate devices using the uYanki board-stm32f103rc-berial on separate VLANs or network segments to restrict access to trusted devices only, minimizing the risk of an attacker gaining adjacent network access. 2. Access Control: Implement strict access controls and monitoring on local networks where these devices operate, including MAC filtering and network anomaly detection to identify suspicious activity targeting I2C communication interfaces. 3. Firmware Updates: Engage with the vendor to obtain patched firmware or rolling release updates addressing this vulnerability. If unavailable, consider applying custom patches or mitigations at the firmware level to validate and sanitize input parameters such as 'num' in the heartrate1_i2c_hal_write function. 4. Device Hardening: Disable or restrict unnecessary interfaces and services on the device to reduce the attack surface. 5. Monitoring and Incident Response: Deploy monitoring solutions to detect abnormal device behavior or crashes indicative of exploitation attempts, and prepare incident response plans specific to embedded device compromise. 6. Physical Security: Ensure physical access to devices is controlled to prevent direct manipulation or connection to the I2C bus. 7. Vendor Communication: Maintain active communication with uYanki for timely updates, patches, and security advisories related to this vulnerability.

Description

A vulnerability classified as critical was found in uYanki board-stm32f103rc-berial up to 84daed541609cb7b46854cc6672a275d1007e295. This vulnerability affects the function heartrate1_i2c_hal_write of the file 7.Example/hal/i2c/max30100/Manual/demo2/2/heartrate1_hal.c. The manipulation of the argument num leads to stack-based buffer overflow. Continious delivery with rolling releases is used by this product. Therefore, no version details of affected nor updated releases are available.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on the deployment of the uYanki board-stm32f103rc-berial in their operational technology (OT) or embedded systems environments. Given that the affected product is an embedded board likely used in sensor or control systems (e.g., medical devices, industrial automation, or IoT deployments), exploitation could lead to disruption of critical monitoring or control functions. This may result in inaccurate sensor readings, system crashes, or unauthorized control, impacting operational continuity and safety. Confidentiality impact is limited due to the local network attack vector and low impact rating, but integrity and availability could be moderately affected. Organizations relying on these devices for health monitoring or industrial processes may face operational risks, including downtime or safety hazards. The medium severity rating suggests that while the vulnerability is not trivial, exploitation requires proximity and some level of access, limiting large-scale remote attacks but posing a risk in environments where local network access is possible. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate it, especially as attackers may develop exploits over time.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…