CVE-2025-46411
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 stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the MFER parsing functionality of The Biosig Project libbiosig 3.9.0 and Master Branch (35a819fa). A specially crafted MFER file can lead to arbitrary code execution. An attacker can provide a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.
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 confidenceA stack-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the MFER file parsing functionality of libbiosig 3.9.0. When parsing a specially crafted malicious MFER file, the parser writes data beyond the bounds of a stack-allocated buffer, allowing an attacker to overwrite return addresses and other stack values to achieve arbitrary code execution.
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= 3.9.0CVSS 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 libbiosig installationRun 'pkg-config --modversion libbiosig' or check your package manager for installed biosig packages. On Linux, also check /usr/lib/libbiosig* or search for libbiosig files with 'find /usr -name "*biosig*" 2>/dev/null'Affected if The installed version is exactly 3.9.0
-
Verify MFER parsing is enabledCheck your application code or configuration for calls to MFER-related functions (such as reading MFER-formatted files). Look for function prefixes like 'MFER' in the codebase or mentions of 'mfer' in file format handlersAffected if MFER file parsing functionality is actively used or loaded in your environment
-
Identify source of MFER filesReview your application's file input handling to determine if it processes MFER files from untrusted sources. Check logs or usage patterns for '.mfer' file extensions being processedAffected if The application processes MFER files from external or untrusted sources
-
Check application contextIdentify which application or service links against libbiosig and what privileges it runs with. Check process lists or service configurations that utilize biosig librariesAffected if The application using libbiosig runs with elevated privileges or processes network-received files
You are affected if libbiosig version 3.9.0 is installed AND your environment processes MFER files from potentially 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 dataUpdate libbiosig to the latest patched version when available. Until a patch is released, implement file validation, disable MFER parsing for untrusted files, or run libbiosig in an isolated sandbox environment with minimal privileges.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,536.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-46411 — 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-2025-46411 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