VulnerabilityPublished 23 Jan 2026

CVE-2025-66720: pcf · NULL Pointer Dereference

Affects pcfSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 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 39% 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 23 Jan 2026
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 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
Gogithub.com/free5gc/pcf`pkg:golang/github.com/free5gc/pcf`Other threats	Affected =1.4.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

1. Monitor official free5gc repositories and security advisories for patches addressing CVE-2025-66720 and apply them promptly once available. 2. Implement robust input validation and error handling in the PCF SBI interfaces to prevent null pointer dereferences from malformed or unexpected requests. 3. Deploy redundancy and failover mechanisms for the PCF component to maintain service continuity in case of crashes. 4. Restrict access to the PCF's SBI endpoints using network segmentation, firewalls, and authentication controls to limit exposure to potentially malicious requests. 5. Continuously monitor PCF logs and system metrics for signs of crashes, abnormal terminations, or unusual request patterns that may indicate exploitation attempts. 6. Conduct regular security testing, including fuzzing and code review of the PCF codebase, to identify and remediate similar vulnerabilities proactively. 7. Engage with the free5gc community and vendors to share threat intelligence and coordinate response efforts. 8. Prepare incident response plans specifically addressing potential denial of service scenarios affecting 5G core network functions.

Description

Null pointer dereference in free5gc pcf 1.4.0 in file internal/sbi/processor/ampolicy.go in function HandleDeletePoliciesPolAssoId.

Impact

For European organizations operating 5G networks using free5gc PCF 1.4.0, this vulnerability poses a risk of denial of service through crashes of the PCF component. Disruption of the PCF can lead to improper enforcement of network policies, affecting subscriber session management, quality of service, and charging functions. This can degrade user experience, cause service interruptions, and potentially impact revenue. In critical infrastructure or enterprise networks relying on 5G connectivity, such outages could affect operational continuity and safety systems. The impact is heightened in environments where free5gc is deployed in production or testing phases without sufficient isolation or redundancy. Since the vulnerability does not appear to allow remote code execution or privilege escalation, confidentiality and integrity impacts are limited. However, availability is significantly affected due to potential service crashes. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits once details become widely known. European telecom operators and enterprises adopting open-source 5G core solutions should consider this vulnerability in their risk assessments and incident response planning.

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 23 Jan 2026, 16:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-476

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats