CVE-2025-64524VulnerabilityPublished 20 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-64524: OpenPrinting cups-filters · Heap-based Buffer Overflow

Affects OpenPrinting cups-filtersSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: 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 impacted component 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 impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 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 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
GitHubopenprinting/cups-filters`pkg:github/openprinting/cups-filters`Other threats	Affected <=2.0.1	Fixed in–

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 verify the version of cups-filters deployed on their systems and upgrade to a patched version beyond 2.0.1 where the vulnerability is fixed. Implement strict access controls to limit local user privileges and restrict who can submit print jobs or access the printing subsystem. Employ application whitelisting and runtime protection mechanisms to detect and prevent exploitation attempts. Regularly audit and monitor printing logs for unusual or malformed print jobs that could indicate exploitation attempts. Consider isolating printing services in hardened containers or virtual machines to reduce the impact of potential compromises. Additionally, maintain up-to-date system patches and security configurations to minimize the attack surface. Educate IT staff about this vulnerability and ensure incident response plans include scenarios involving printing service disruptions.

Description

cups-filters contains backends, filters, and other software required to get the cups printing service working on operating systems other than macos. In versions 2.0.1 and prior, a heap-buffer-overflow vulnerability in the rastertopclx filter causes the program to crash with a segmentation fault when processing maliciously crafted input data. This issue can be exploited to trigger memory corruption, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution. This issue has been patched via commit 956283c.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-64524 is the potential disruption of printing services due to crashes caused by the heap overflow. While the vulnerability does not directly compromise confidentiality or integrity, the possibility of arbitrary code execution could allow attackers to escalate privileges or move laterally within a network if combined with other vulnerabilities. Organizations relying on cups-filters for printing in critical environments such as government offices, healthcare, finance, and manufacturing could face operational interruptions. The requirement for local access limits remote exploitation, but insider threats or attackers who have gained initial footholds could exploit this vulnerability to deepen their access. Given the widespread use of Linux and Unix systems in European data centers and enterprises, unpatched systems may be vulnerable to targeted attacks or accidental crashes caused by malformed print jobs.

CWE-122Heap-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #16
A heap overflow condition is a buffer overflow, where the buffer that can be overwritten is allocated in the heap portion of memory, generally meaning that the buffer was allocated using a routine such as malloc().
Pre-design: Use a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
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
Forced Integer Overflow (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 27 Nov 2025, 18:24 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-122

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats