NuttxApplication · Apache
CVE-2025-47869
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 · uneditedImproper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer vulnerability was discovered in Apache NuttX RTOS apps/exapmles/xmlrpc application. In this example application device stats structure that stored remotely provided parameters had hardcoded buffer size which could lead to buffer overflow. Structure members buffers were updated to valid size of CONFIG_XMLRPC_STRINGSIZE+1. This issue affects Apache NuttX RTOS users that may have used or base their code on example application as presented in releases from 6.22 before 12.9.0. Users of XMLRPC in Apache NuttX RTOS are advised to review their code for this pattern and update buffer sizes as presented in the version of the example in release 12.9.0.
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in Apache NuttX RTOS apps/examples/xmlrpc where the device stats structure uses hardcoded buffer sizes for remotely provided parameters. When XMLRPC receives parameters larger than the hardcoded buffer, it leads to buffer overflow. The fix updates structure member buffers to use CONFIG_XMLRPC_STRINGSIZE+1 instead of the previous hardcoded size.
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
NuttxApplication
>= 6.22, < 12.9.0CVSS 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.
-
Verify xmlrpc example application is present in the buildCheck if apps/examples/xmlrpc is included in the NuttX build configuration (defconfig or .config file) or listed in the built systemAffected if The xmlrpc example application is built into the system and the device stats structure uses hardcoded buffer sizes instead of CONFIG_XMLRPC_STRINGSIZE+1
-
Confirm NuttX version is within affected rangeCheck the NuttX version by inspecting the version file or build output - look for version >= 6.22 and < 12.9.0Affected if The installed NuttX version is 6.22 or higher but earlier than 12.9.0
-
Locate the xmlrpc device stats structureSearch the source code for the device stats structure used in xmlrpc (typically in apps/examples/xmlrpc), looking for character arrays used to store string parameters from remote requestsAffected if The structure contains fixed-size character arrays (hardcoded sizes) for storing remotely provided string parameters rather than using CONFIG_XMLRPC_STRINGSIZE+1
-
Compare buffer size definitionsInspect the buffer size definitions in the xmlrpc example code - compare hardcoded numeric buffer sizes against the value of CONFIG_XMLRPC_STRINGSIZE if defined in the configurationAffected if Hardcoded buffer sizes (numeric literals) are smaller than CONFIG_XMLRPC_STRINGSIZE+1, creating the conditions for overflow when large parameters are received
A system is affected if it runs NuttX version 6.22 through 12.8.x, includes the xmlrpc example application in the build, and the device stats structure uses hardcoded buffer sizes smaller than CONFIG_XMLRPC_STRINGSIZE+1 for remotely provided parameters.
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.
dbcve · scoped12.9.0
Review code derived from or similar to the xmlrpc example application and update buffer sizes to CONFIG_XMLRPC_STRINGSIZE+1 as shown in release 12.9.0. Search for similar hardcoded buffer patterns in any code that handles remotely provided string parameters.
Apache NuttX RTOS 12.9.0
- 1. Obtain Apache NuttX RTOS version 12.9.0 or later from the official repository
- 2. If using XMLRPC in custom code, review the apps/examples/xmlrpc example in release 12.9.0
- 3. Update any buffer sizes in device stats structures to use CONFIG_XMLRPC_STRINGSIZE+1 instead of hardcoded smaller sizes
- 4. Rebuild the NuttX image with the updated code
- 5. Verify the XMLRPC functionality works correctly with the new buffer sizes
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Nuttx
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-47869 — 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-2025-47869 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