VulnerabilityPublished 18 Dec 2025Updated 19 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-65567: upf · Out-of-bounds Read

Affects upfSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 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 35% 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 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

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

Implement strict input validation and boundary checks in the Flow-Description parser within the pfcpiface component to prevent buffer over-read conditions.
Deploy network-level filtering and access controls to restrict PFCP traffic to trusted sources only, minimizing exposure of the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint to untrusted networks.
Monitor PFCP traffic for anomalous or malformed Session Establishment Requests indicative of exploitation attempts.
Employ redundancy and failover mechanisms for UPF instances to maintain service continuity during potential crashes.
Engage with the omec-project community or vendors for patches or updated versions addressing this vulnerability as they become available.
Conduct regular security assessments and penetration testing focused on PFCP interfaces to identify and remediate similar issues proactively.
Consider isolating UPF components in segmented network zones with strict ingress filtering to reduce attack surface.

Description

A denial-of-service vulnerability exists in the omec-project UPF (pfcpiface component) in version upf-epc-pfcpiface:2.1.3-dev. After PFCP association, a specially crafted PFCP Session Establishment Request with a CreatePDR that contains a malformed Flow-Description is not robustly validated. The Flow-Description parser (parseFlowDesc) can read beyond the bounds of the provided buffer, causing a panic and terminating the UPF process. An attacker who can send PFCP Session Establishment Request messages to the UPF's N4/PFCP endpoint can exploit this issue to repeatedly crash the UPF.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly telecom operators and 5G service providers using the omec-project UPF, this vulnerability can cause repeated denial-of-service conditions, leading to service outages and degraded network performance. The UPF is critical for user plane traffic management; its disruption can interrupt subscriber data flows, impacting end-user experience and potentially violating service level agreements. The availability impact could cascade, affecting dependent network functions and services. Given the increasing reliance on 5G infrastructure across Europe for critical communications, industrial automation, and IoT, such outages could have broader economic and operational consequences. Additionally, repeated crashes may increase operational costs due to emergency response and recovery efforts. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly impacted, the availability degradation alone is significant for network operators and their customers.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
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
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

github.com/omec-project/upf/issues/959 (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-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats