VulnerabilityPublished 29 Nov 2025Updated 3 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-61915: OpenPrinting cups · Improper Validation of Array Index

Affects OpenPrinting cupsSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.0 Medium : upgrade to 2.4.15 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 39% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 2.4.15

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

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: High
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
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: High: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide significant (e.g., administrative) control over the vulnerable component that could affect component-wide settings and files.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
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 29 Nov 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

Upgrade openprinting/cups to 2.4.15.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubopenprinting/cups`pkg:github/openprinting/cups`Other threats	Affected <2.4.15	Fixed in 2.4.15

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

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately upgrade all CUPS installations to version 2.4.15 or later to remediate this vulnerability. In addition, organizations should audit membership of the lpadmin group to ensure only trusted administrators have this privilege, reducing the risk of exploitation. Implement strict access controls and monitoring on the cups web UI to detect unauthorized configuration changes. Employ host-based intrusion detection systems (HIDS) to monitor cupsd process behavior and alert on crashes or unusual activity. Regularly review and harden printing infrastructure configurations, disabling unnecessary services or interfaces. Consider network segmentation to isolate printing servers from less trusted network zones. Finally, maintain up-to-date backups of configuration files and ensure incident response plans include scenarios involving printing service disruption.

Description

OpenPrinting CUPS is an open source printing system for Linux and other Unix-like operating systems. Prior to version 2.4.15, a user in the lpadmin group can use the cups web ui to change the config and insert a malicious line. Then the cupsd process which runs as root will parse the new config and cause an out-of-bound write. This issue has been patched in version 2.4.15.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-61915 is on the availability of printing services. Organizations with critical printing infrastructure relying on CUPS could experience denial of service if the vulnerability is exploited, potentially disrupting business operations that depend on printing. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality or integrity, the root-level execution context of cupsd means that exploitation could be leveraged as part of a larger attack chain. Organizations in sectors such as government, finance, healthcare, and manufacturing—where printing remains integral—may face operational risks. Additionally, organizations with large Unix/Linux server deployments or managed print services are at risk. The requirement for lpadmin group membership limits the attack surface to users with elevated local privileges, but insider threats or compromised accounts could exploit this vulnerability. Given the widespread use of CUPS in European IT environments, failure to patch could lead to service outages and increased risk exposure.

CWE-129Improper Validation of Array Index (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product uses untrusted input when calculating or using an array index, but the product does not validate or incorrectly validates the index to ensure the index references a valid position within the array.
Architecture and Design · Input Validation
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design
For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks…
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (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
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-124Buffer Underwrite ('Buffer Underflow') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product writes to a buffer using an index or pointer that references a memory location prior to the beginning of the buffer.
Requirements
Choose a language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
All calculated values that are used as index or for pointer arithmetic should be validated to ensure that they are within an expected range.
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

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Dec 2025, 04:19 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-129, CWE-124

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats