CVE-2025-11617
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 · uneditedA missing validation check in FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP's IPv6 packet processing code can lead to an out-of-bounds read when receiving a IPv6 packet with incorrect payload lengths in the packet header. This issue only affects applications using IPv6. We recommend users upgrade to the latest version and ensure any forked or derivative code is patched to incorporate the new fixes.
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 · high confidenceFreeRTOS-Plus-TCP lacks a validation check in its IPv6 packet processing code. When receiving an IPv6 packet with an incorrect payload length in the header, the code performs an out-of-bounds read, potentially exposing sensitive memory contents or causing a denial of service. This vulnerability only affects IPv6-enabled applications.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 4.0.0, < 4.3.4CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L
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 FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP is in useReview your project dependencies or codebase for the FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP library. Check your build configuration, package manager, or source files for references to FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP components.Affected if FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP is not present in your codebase, you are not affected.
-
Determine the installed version of FreeRTOS-Plus-TCPLocate the version header or version definition file for FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP in your project. Common locations include a version.h file or a CMakeLists.txt / Makefile that specifies the version. Compare your version against the affected range: 4.0.0 through 4.3.3 inclusive.Affected if Your installed version is 4.0.0 or higher but lower than 4.3.4, you may be affected.
-
Verify if IPv6 is enabled in your configurationCheck your FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP configuration files (typically ipconfig.h or similar) for IPv6-related settings. Look for configuration options such as ipconfigUSE_IPv6, FreeRTOS_SO_IPV6, or similar IPv6 enable flags.Affected if IPv6 is disabled in your configuration, you are NOT affected by this vulnerability, as the CVE explicitly states it only affects IPv6-enabled applications.
-
Inspect IPv6 packet reception code for payload length validationExamine the IPv6 packet processing source files in FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP, specifically functions that handle incoming IPv6 packets. Look for code that reads the payload length field from the IPv6 header and verify whether it validates this length against the actual received data before performing memory operations.Affected if The IPv6 packet processing code lacks a check comparing the header payload length against the actual packet buffer size before performing read operations, you are affected.
You are affected if your environment uses FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP version 4.0.0 or higher but lower than 4.3.4, has IPv6 functionality enabled, and the payload length validation is missing from the IPv6 packet processing code.
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.
dbcve · scoped4.3.4
Upgrade to the latest version of FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP. Review any forked or derivative code to ensure the payload length validation patch has been incorporated.
4.3.4 or latest stable release
- Update FreeRTOS-Plus-TCP library dependency to version 4.3.4 or later in your project
- Rebuild and redeploy the firmware
- Test IPv6 functionality to confirm the fix works correctly
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-11617 — 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-2025-11617 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