CVE-2025-3408
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 vulnerability was found in Nothings stb up to f056911. It has been rated as critical. Affected by this issue is the function stb_dupreplace. The manipulation leads to integer overflow. The attack may be launched remotely. Continious delivery with rolling releases is used by this product. Therefore, no version details of affected nor updated releases are available. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.
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 confidenceInteger overflow vulnerability in the stb library's stb_dupreplace function. The overflow occurs during arithmetic operations within the string duplication/replacement logic, potentially leading to heap corruption or buffer overflow when processing maliciously crafted input strings.
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<= 2.13CVSS 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Locate stb_image.h in your environmentSearch your codebase for 'stb_image.h' file: find / -name 'stb_image.h' 2>/dev/null (Linux/Mac) or Get-ChildItem -Recurse -Filter 'stb_image.h' (Windows)Affected if File is found in your project dependencies
-
Determine stb_image.h versionOpen the stb_image.h file and search for a version definition near the top (often like '#define STB_IMAGE_VERSION' or 'STB_IMAGE_H_VERSION')Affected if Version is 2.13 or earlier, or version line is missing (indicating very old copy)
-
Identify stb_dupreplace usageSearch your codebase for calls to 'stb_dupreplace': grep -r 'stb_dupreplace' . (Linux/Mac) or Select-String -Recurse 'stb_dupreplace' (Windows)Affected if The function is called in your code or a library you depend on
-
Check if input to stb_dupreplace is untrustedReview the code calling stb_dupreplace and trace the input parameters back to their source (user input, files, network)Affected if Any string parameter passed to stb_dupreplace originates from user input, external files, or network data without sanitization
You are affected if you have stb_image.h version 2.13 or earlier AND your code uses stb_dupreplace with input from untrusted sources.
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 dataSince the vendor has not responded, consider implementing input validation bounds-checking around calls to stb_dupreplace, or replace with a safer string replacement implementation. Monitor for patched versions of the stb library.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-3408 — 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-2025-3408 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