Classic Buffer OverflowWeakness · CWE-120

CVE-2025-29476

MEDIUM · 5.5 CVSS v3.1 Published 2025-04-04
No fix yet
No fix has been published. The vendor has not shipped a fixed release or patch. You remain exposed.
See remediation →
59/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Public exploit Remotely reachable

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 · unedited
Buffer Overflow vulnerability in compress_chunk_fuzzer with oss-fuzz on commit 16450518afddcb3139de627157208e49bfef6987 in c-blosc2 v.2.17.0 and before.

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
How this class of weakness works · CWE-120

A fixed-size buffer is filled without checking the length of the incoming data, so it overflows into neighbouring memory. This is the classic overflow attackers use to overwrite return addresses and hijack execution. The fix is strict length checks and safe, bounded string and memory functions.

General guidance for the classic buffer overflow class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →

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
Low
User interaction
Required
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
Low
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L

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 · scoped
Recommended fix Moderate confidence

c-blosc2 v.2.17.1 or later (latest stable release)

  1. 1. Identify the c-blosc2 library version in your codebase by checking your dependency files (e.g., package.json, requirements.txt, CMakeLists.txt, conanfile.txt)
  2. 2. Locate where c-blosc2 is used in your project (likely as a direct dependency or transitive dependency)
  3. 3. Update c-blosc2 to a version newer than v.2.17.0 - check the project's GitHub releases for the latest stable version that includes the fix
  4. 4. Rebuild and test your application to verify the vulnerability is resolved
  5. 5. Re-scan with the OSS-Fuzz or similar fuzzing tools to confirm the fix
Caveat Review release notes for any API changes between your current version and the upgrade target - c-blosc2 minor releases are generally backward compatible but testing is recommended

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

No vendor fix exists The vendor has not published a patch for this.

There is no version to upgrade to and no patch to apply. Every affected install stays exposed until the vendor ships a fix — or somebody else builds one.

Add your voice

Free. We build fixes in the order the community asks for them — and we’ll tell you the moment this one lands.

Can’t wait

We develop and verify an original fix where the vendor hasn’t, from $2,850. Deployed to your staging first — never straight to production.

Scope it with us

See what else the community needs solved on the solutions-needed board.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-29476 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-29476 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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