VulnerabilityPublished 23 Feb 2026Updated 25 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-69232: free5gc go-upf · Improper Input Validation

Affects free5gc go-upfSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.7 Low.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.7Low

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:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: None
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: Unreported

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: Unreported: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · No knowledge of publicly available proof-of-concept · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 23 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: 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 29 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.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), 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
free5gcgo-upf	Affected <=1.2.6	Fixed in–
free5gcsmf	Affected <=1.4.0	Fixed in–
Gogithub.com/free5gc/go-upf`pkg:golang/github.com/free5gc/go-upf`Other threats	Affected <=1.2.6	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

Deploy strict firewall rules and access controls to restrict PFCP traffic to trusted management and control plane hosts only. Monitor network traffic for malformed PFCP Association Setup Requests and anomalous PFCP behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Employ network segmentation to isolate the 5G core network components from other infrastructure. Prepare for rapid deployment of the official patch once released by free5GC maintainers. Additionally, consider deploying redundancy and failover mechanisms for UPF and SMF components to minimize service disruption if an attack occurs. Engage with free5GC community and vendors for updates and best practices. Avoid exposing free5GC control plane interfaces directly to the internet or untrusted environments until patched.

Description

free5GC is an open-source project for 5th generation (5G) mobile core networks.free5GC go-upf versions up to and including 1.2.6, corresponding to free5gc smf up to and including 1.4.0, have an Improper Input Validation and Protocol Compliance vulnerability leading to Denial of Service. Remote attackers can disrupt core network functionality by sending a malformed PFCP Association Setup Request. The UPF incorrectly accepts it, entering an inconsistent state that causes subsequent legitimate requests to trigger SMF reconnection loops and service degradation. All deployments of free5GC using the UPF and SMF components may be affected. As of time of publication, a fix is in development but not yet available. No direct workaround is available at the application level. Applying the official patch, once released, is recommended.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is denial of service within the 5G core network, specifically affecting the UPF and SMF components. Disruption of these critical network functions can lead to degraded or unavailable mobile data services for subscribers, impacting telecommunications providers and their customers. This can cause service outages, loss of connectivity, and degraded user experience. For organizations relying on free5GC for private or public 5G networks, this could interrupt business-critical communications and IoT operations. Although the CVSS score is low, the strategic importance of 5G core network availability means even short disruptions can have significant operational and reputational consequences. The vulnerability does not appear to allow data leakage or privilege escalation, limiting confidentiality and integrity impacts, but availability is clearly affected. The lack of authentication requirements and remote exploitability increase the risk of opportunistic attacks, especially in environments where free5GC is exposed to untrusted networks.

Summary

free5GC is an open-source 5G core network implementation, with the go-upf component responsible for the User Plane Function (UPF). Versions of go-upf up to 1.2.6, and corresponding SMF versions up to 1.4.0, contain a vulnerability classified as CWE-20 (Improper Input Validation). Specifically, the UPF improperly processes a malformed PFCP (Packet Forwarding Control Protocol) Association Setup Request sent by a remote attacker. Instead of rejecting the malformed request, the UPF accepts it and transitions into an inconsistent internal state. This corrupted state causes legitimate subsequent PFCP requests to trigger reconnection loops in the SMF (Session Management Function), degrading service availability and causing denial of service in the 5G core network. The vulnerability requires no authentication or user interaction and can be exploited remotely over the network. The issue impacts all deployments using the affected free5GC UPF and SMF versions, potentially disrupting 5G core network operations until fixed.

CWE-20Improper Input Validation (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #18OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Attack Surface Reduction
Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build "recognizers" for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of…
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
Architecture and Design · Implementation · Attack Surface Reduction
Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (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
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Server Side Include (SSI) Injection (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Command Line Execution through SQL Injection (opens in a new tab)
Object Relational Mapping Injection (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 3 Mar 2026, 01:21 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-20

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats