CVE-2025-65564VulnerabilityPublished 18 Dec 2025Updated 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-65564: upf · n/a

Affects upfSource 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: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% 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 18 Dec 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
GitHubomec-project/upf`pkg:github/omec-project/upf`Other threats	Affected =2.1.3-dev	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-65564, European telecom operators and network administrators should implement the following specific measures: 1) Enforce strict input validation on PFCP messages at the UPF to ensure mandatory Information Elements like the Recovery Time Stamp are present before processing. 2) Apply network segmentation and access controls to restrict access to the N4/PFCP interface only to authorized network elements, minimizing exposure to potential attackers. 3) Deploy PFCP message filtering or deep packet inspection on interfaces leading to the UPF to detect and block malformed or suspicious Association Setup Requests. 4) Monitor UPF process stability and implement automated restart mechanisms with alerting to quickly respond to crashes. 5) Engage with the omec-upf vendor or open-source community to obtain patches or updated versions addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available. 6) Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing on 5G core components to identify similar robustness issues. 7) Maintain up-to-date network documentation and incident response plans tailored to 5G core network components. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on protocol-specific validation, network architecture hardening, and operational readiness.

Description

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-upf (upf-epc-pfcpiface) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. When the UPF receives a PFCP Association Setup Request that is missing the mandatory Recovery Time Stamp Information Element, the association setup handler dereferences a nil pointer via IE.RecoveryTimeStamp() instead of validating the message. This results in a panic and terminates the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Association Setup Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-65564 is on the availability of the User Plane Function within 5G core networks. The UPF is responsible for routing and forwarding user data traffic, so repeated crashes can cause significant service disruption, leading to dropped calls, interrupted data sessions, and degraded user experience. For European organizations, especially telecom operators and mobile network providers, this vulnerability could result in network outages affecting millions of subscribers. Disruption of user-plane services can also impact enterprise customers relying on 5G connectivity for critical applications, including IoT, industrial automation, and emergency services. Additionally, repeated crashes may increase operational costs due to incident response and recovery efforts. Although the vulnerability does not compromise confidentiality or integrity, the denial-of-service effect can be leveraged as part of a broader attack campaign or to cause reputational damage. The lack of authentication requirement for exploitation increases the risk if attackers gain access to the internal network or if the N4 interface is exposed improperly. The absence of known exploits in the wild currently limits immediate risk, but the vulnerability's simplicity and high impact make it a likely target once publicized.

CWE-476NULL Pointer Dereference (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: MediumCWE Top 25 (2025): #13OWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product dereferences a pointer that it expects to be valid but is NULL.
Implementation
For any pointers that could have been modified or provided from a function that can return NULL, check the pointer for NULL before use. When working with a multithreaded or otherwise asynchronous environment, ensure that proper locking APIs are used to lock before the check, and unlock when it has finished.
Requirements
Select a programming language that is not susceptible to these issues.
Implementation
Check the results of all functions that return a value and verify that the value is non-null before acting upon it.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (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 25 Dec 2025, 19:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-476

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats