VulnerabilityPublished 13 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-70121: AMF component of free5GC · An Array Index Out of Bounds

Source 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: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 32% 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 13 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-2025-70121, organizations should first monitor for updates or patches from the free5GC project and apply them promptly once available. In the absence of an official patch, temporary mitigations include implementing input validation and boundary checks on NAS Registration Request messages at network ingress points or within the AMF codebase if feasible. Deploying network-level filtering or anomaly detection to identify and block malformed NAS messages can reduce exposure. Operators should also consider deploying redundant AMF instances with failover capabilities to maintain service availability during an attack or crash event. Conducting thorough code reviews and fuzz testing on NAS message parsing components can help identify similar vulnerabilities proactively. Additionally, logging and monitoring AMF crashes and unusual NAS message patterns can aid in early detection of exploitation attempts. Finally, restricting network access to trusted entities and employing network segmentation can limit the attack surface.

Description

An array index out of bounds vulnerability in the AMF component of free5GC v4.0.1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service via a crafted 5GS Mobile Identity in a NAS Registration Request message. The issue occurs in the GetSUCI method (NAS_MobileIdentity5GS.go) when accessing index 5 of a 5-element array, leading to a runtime panic and AMF crash.

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is a denial of service against the AMF component of free5GC-based 5G core networks. An attacker can remotely crash the AMF by sending a specially crafted NAS Registration Request, causing a runtime panic and service disruption. This leads to unavailability of mobility management and registration services for subscribers, potentially affecting large numbers of users depending on the deployment scale. Disruption of AMF services can degrade network reliability, cause call drops, prevent new device registrations, and impact overall subscriber experience. For operators relying on free5GC in production or test environments, this could result in significant operational downtime and loss of trust. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly impacted, the availability impact is critical for network continuity. The ease of exploitation and lack of required privileges increase the risk of opportunistic or targeted attacks. Given the central role of AMF in 5G core networks, this vulnerability poses a substantial risk to telecommunications providers 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/free5gc/free5gc/issues/747 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Feb 2026, 22:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats