CVE-2025-30404
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 · uneditedAn integer overflow vulnerability in the loading of ExecuTorch models can cause overlapping allocations, potentially resulting in code execution or other undesirable effects. This issue affects ExecuTorch prior to commit d158236b1dc84539c1b16843bc74054c9dcba006.
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 confidenceAn integer overflow vulnerability exists in ExecuTorch's model loading functionality where calculation of allocation sizes can overflow, resulting in overlapping memory buffers. This memory corruption issue can be leveraged for arbitrary code execution. The vulnerability is in the model loading path prior to commit d158236b1dc84539c1b16843bc74054c9dcba006.
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 ExecuTorch installationLocate the ExecuTorch library or source code in your environment. Check common paths like /usr/local/lib/libexecutorch.so, pip show executorch, or look for the executorch directory in your project dependencies.Affected if ExecuTorch is present in the environment
-
Determine ExecuTorch version or commit hashRun 'git log --oneline -1' in the ExecuTorch source directory, or check the installed package version via 'pip show executorch' or the version header file. Compare against commit d158236b1dc84539c1b16843bc74054c9dcba006.Affected if The installed commit is earlier than d158236b1dc84539c1b16843bc74054c9dcba006 or the version is unknown/older
-
Verify model loading functionality is usedInspect your code or application to determine if ExecuTorch's model loading APIs are called, such as loading .pte files via ExecuTorch's loader functions. Check if any ExecuTorch models are being loaded at runtime.Affected if The application loads ExecuTorch models (.pte files) using the affected code path
-
Confirm allocation calculations occur during model loadingReview whether the model loading process triggers memory allocation calculations for model structures. This is inherent to any ExecuTorch model loading operation prior to the fix.Affected if Models are being loaded without having updated to the patched version
A user is affected if ExecuTorch is installed and loads models using a version prior to commit d158236b1dc84539c1b16843bc74054c9dcba006, as the integer overflow occurs during allocation size calculations in the model loading path.
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 dataUpdate ExecuTorch to version containing commit d158236b1dc84539c1b16843bc74054c9dcba006 or later to resolve the integer overflow in model loading allocation calculations.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-30404 — 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-2025-30404 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