VulnerabilityPublished 11 Feb 2026Updated 12 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-70085: OpenSatKit · Stack-based Buffer Overflow

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 9.8 Critical.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

9.8Critical

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.6% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 49% 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:H/I:H/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to 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 11 Feb 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 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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-70085, organizations should immediately upgrade OpenSatKit to a version where this vulnerability is patched once available. In the absence of an official patch, developers should audit and refactor the affected code in file.c, replacing all unsafe sprintf calls with bounded functions such as snprintf or using format specifiers that limit output length (e.g., %.*s). Implement rigorous input validation to ensure filenames do not exceed safe lengths before processing. Employ compiler-based protections such as stack canaries, Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), and Data Execution Prevention (DEP) to reduce exploitation risk. Additionally, conduct thorough code reviews and static analysis to identify similar unsafe string operations elsewhere in the codebase. Network-level protections, such as firewall rules and intrusion detection systems, should monitor for anomalous activity targeting OpenSatKit services. Finally, maintain robust incident response plans to quickly address any exploitation attempts.

Description

An issue was discovered in OpenSatKit 2.2.1. The EventErrStr buffer has a fixed size of 256 bytes. The code uses sprintf to format two filenames (Source1Filename and the string returned by FileUtil_FileStateStr) into this buffer without any length checking and without using bounded format specifiers such as %.*s. If the filename length approaches OS_MAX_PATH_LEN (commonly 64-256 bytes), the combined formatted string together with constant text can exceed 256 bytes, resulting in a stack buffer overflow. Such unsafe sprintf calls are scattered across multiple functions in file.c, including FILE_ConcatenateCmd() and ConcatenateFiles(), all of which fail to validate the output length.

Impact

The impact of CVE-2025-70085 is severe due to its potential to allow remote, unauthenticated attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause denial of service via a stack buffer overflow. Successful exploitation can lead to full compromise of affected systems, including unauthorized access to sensitive data (confidentiality breach), modification or destruction of data (integrity loss), and disruption of system operations (availability loss). Organizations relying on OpenSatKit 2.2.1, particularly in aerospace, satellite communications, and defense sectors, face heightened risk as these systems often handle critical mission data and control satellite operations. The vulnerability could be leveraged to disrupt satellite command and control software, potentially causing cascading failures or loss of control over satellite assets. Additionally, the lack of authentication or user interaction requirements increases the attack surface, making automated exploitation feasible. The absence of known exploits in the wild does not diminish the urgency, as the vulnerability is straightforward to exploit given the unsafe coding practices involved.

CWE-121Stack-based Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #14
A stack-based buffer overflow condition is a condition where the buffer being overwritten is allocated on the stack (i.e., is a local variable or, rarely, a parameter to a function).
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
Architecture and Design
Use an abstraction library to abstract away risky APIs. Not a complete solution.
Implementation
Implement and perform bounds checking on input.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 19 Feb 2026, 14:10 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-121

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats