CVE-2025-65566VulnerabilityPublished 18 Dec 2025Updated 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-65566: 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: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 26% 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-2025-65566, European telecom operators should prioritize the following actions: 1) Apply vendor patches or updates as soon as they become available for the omec-project UPF pfcpiface component to ensure proper validation of PFCP messages. 2) Implement strict input validation and sanity checks on PFCP Session Report Response messages at the N4/PFCP interface to reject malformed or incomplete messages before processing. 3) Employ network segmentation and access controls to restrict which entities can send PFCP messages to the UPF, limiting exposure to untrusted sources. 4) Monitor UPF process stability and logs for signs of crashes or malformed PFCP messages to detect potential exploitation attempts early. 5) Consider deploying redundancy and failover mechanisms for UPF instances to maintain user-plane service continuity in case of crashes. 6) Collaborate with omec-project maintainers and the broader telecom security community to stay informed about patches and best practices. These targeted mitigations go beyond generic advice by focusing on protocol-level validation, network controls, and operational monitoring specific to the omec-project UPF environment.

Description

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (pfcpiface component) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. When the UPF receives a PFCP Session Report Response that is missing the mandatory Cause Information Element, the session report handler dereferences a nil pointer instead of rejecting the malformed message. This triggers a panic and terminates the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Session Report Response messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this flaw to repeatedly crash the UPF and disrupt user-plane services.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly telecom operators and mobile network providers deploying the omec-project UPF component, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to network availability. Exploitation can cause repeated crashes of the UPF, disrupting user-plane data forwarding and resulting in service outages for mobile subscribers. This can lead to degraded customer experience, potential regulatory scrutiny, and financial losses due to downtime. The disruption of user-plane services can affect critical communications, including emergency services and enterprise mobile applications. Additionally, the vulnerability could be leveraged as part of a broader attack to degrade network infrastructure resilience. Given the increasing reliance on 5G networks and the adoption of open-source components like omec-project in Europe, the impact could be widespread if not mitigated promptly. The lack of confidentiality or integrity impact limits data breach risks, but availability degradation in telecom infrastructure is critical and can have cascading effects on dependent services.

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

github.com/omec-project/upf/issues/958 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 25 Dec 2025, 19:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-476

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats