CVE-2025-21094
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 in the UEFI firmware DXE module for the Intel(R) Server D50DNP and M50FCP boards may allow a privileged user to potentially enable escalation of privilege via local access.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability exists in a UEFI firmware DXE (Driver Execution Environment) module on Intel server boards D50DNP and M50FCP. The improper input validation in the DXE phase could allow a privileged local user to escalate privileges, likely through a buffer overflow or similar injection vector in the firmware module.
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
- High
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Identify the server board modelRun 'dmidecode -t baseboard' or check system inventory/BMC for the exact board model number (D50DNP or M50FCP)Affected if System is not an Intel D50DNP or M50FCP board - not affected by this specific CVE
-
Retrieve UEFI firmware versionAccess BMC web interface or use 'ipmitool mc info' or 'dmidecode -t bios' to read the installed BIOS/UEFI firmware version stringAffected if Firmware version matches or exceeds the corrected version for this vulnerability (once Intel publishes the fix) - not affected; otherwise, may be vulnerable
-
Verify DXE phase module presenceDump UEFI firmware image (via BIOS update utility or BMC) and examine the DXE driver list using UEFI firmware parsing tools (like UEFI Tool or RU.efi) to locate the vulnerable validation moduleAffected if The specific DXE module with improper input validation is present in the firmware image - vulnerability is present
-
Confirm local privileged access scopeReview local user accounts, sudo privileges, and administrative group membership using 'getent group sudo' or 'id <username>' to determine if standard users have privileged accessAffected if The vulnerability requires a privileged local user to escalate - if only unprivileged local users exist, impact is reduced
Affected if the system is an Intel D50DNP or M50FCP board running UEFI firmware versions prior to Intel's corrected release that addresses the DXE phase input validation flaw.
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 dataApply the Intel firmware update for affected boards once released; prioritize systems with direct local access and ensure firmware integrity verification before deployment.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $11,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-21094 — 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-2025-21094 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