CVE-2025-0005
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedImproper input validation within the XOCL driver may allow a local attacker to generate an integer overflow condition, potentially resulting in crash or denial of service.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceThe XOCL driver contains improper input validation that allows a local attacker to trigger an integer overflow condition. This occurs when the driver processes certain input values without proper bounds checking, leading to arithmetic overflow that can cause the driver to crash or become unresponsive.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm XOCL driver presenceLocate the XOCL driver on the system using commands such as 'lsmod | grep xocl', 'find / -name '*xocl*' 2>/dev/null', or check device drivers in the system inventoryAffected if The XOCL driver is not found on the system, meaning the component is not installed and therefore not affected
-
Check if driver is loaded or activeVerify driver status with commands like 'lsmod', 'systemctl status', or check /proc/modules for xocl entriesAffected if The driver is loaded and actively processing requests, making it potentially vulnerable to input manipulation
-
Review driver versionQuery the installed driver version using 'modinfo xocl', 'lspci -v', or vendor-provided diagnostic tools, then compare against any vendor release notes for CVE-2025-0005Affected if The installed version matches the affected range (if released by vendor) or is an unpatched version
-
Inspect crash or error logsCheck system logs (journalctl, dmesg, /var/log/messages) for recent XOCL-related crashes, integer overflow errors, or driver instability eventsAffected if Recent crashes or error messages mentioning XOCL and arithmetic overflow are present in logs
The system is affected if the XOCL driver is installed, loaded, and running an unpatched version, especially if crash logs show integer overflow events related to driver input processing.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataImplement robust input validation and bounds checking in the XOCL driver to ensure all integer values are validated before arithmetic operations. Consider adding guardrails to prevent overflow conditions in critical code paths.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,816.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-0005 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-0005 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data