CVE-2025-29366
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 · uneditedIn mupen64plus v2.6.0 there is an array overflow vulnerability in the write_rdram_regs and write_rdram_regs functions, which enables executing arbitrary commands on the host machine.
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 confidenceMupen64Plus v2.6.0 contains an array overflow vulnerability in the write_rdram_regs function(s) used for RDRAM register emulation. This memory corruption issue can be leveraged to achieve arbitrary command execution on the host machine, representing a critical pre-authentication remote code execution vulnerability in this Nintendo 64 emulator.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/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 Mupen64Plus installation and versionRun 'mupen64plus --version' or check package manager (dpkg -l | grep mupen64plus, rpm -qa | grep mupen64plus). On Windows, check Add/Remove Programs or the executable properties.Affected if The installed version is v2.6.0 specifically, or if the version cannot be determined and Mupen64Plus is present.
-
Locate RDRAM register emulation configurationSearch for config files in ~/.config/mupen64plus/, /etc/mupen64plus/, or the installation directory for mupen64plus.ini, mupen64plus.cfg, or similar configuration files. Inspect them for RDRAM-related settings.Affected if RDBRAM register emulation is explicitly enabled or the configuration file contains write_rdram_regs references.
-
Check for network exposure of the emulatorRun 'netstat -tlnp' or 'ss -tlnp' to list listening ports. Look for ports associated with mupen64plus (common debug ports include 2074, 2075). Check if the process binds to 0.0.0.0 or an external IP.Affected if Mupen64Plus is listening on a network-accessible interface (0.0.0.0 or external IP) without authentication controls.
-
Inspect running emulator processesRun 'ps aux | grep -i mupen64' to check if the emulator is currently running. Note any command-line arguments showing ROM file loading.Affected if Mupen64Plus is running and actively processing N64 ROM files, particularly from untrusted or network-accessible sources.
You are affected if Mupen64Plus v2.6.0 is installed and the RDRAM register emulation feature is enabled or the emulator is network-accessible, since the array overflow in write_rdram_regs can be triggered during N64 ROM emulation.
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 bounds checking fixes to array accesses in write_rdram_regs; upgrade to any available patched version of mupen64plus. If patching is not possible, limit network exposure and avoid running untrusted N64 ROM files.
- 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-2025-29366 — 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-2025-29366 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