CVE-2025-52538
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 input validation within the XOCL driver may allow a local attacker to generate an integer overflow condition, potentially resulting in loss of confidentiality or availability.
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 confidenceImproper input validation in the XOCL driver allows a local attacker to trigger an integer overflow condition. Successful exploitation could lead to loss of confidentiality or availability via memory corruption or unexpected behavior.
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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/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 the XOCL driver on the systemSearch for files named xocl, xocl.ko, xocl.sys, or similar driver binaries in common driver directories such as /lib/modules, /System/Library/Extensions, C:\Windows\System32\drivers, or use a system inventory tool to list installed drivers.Affected if The XOCL driver is present on the system.
-
Verify if the XOCL driver is loaded or runningOn Linux, run lsmod or check /proc/modules for xocl. On Windows, run driverquery or check device manager. On macOS, check kextstat for loaded kernel extensions.Affected if The XOCL driver is currently loaded into kernel memory.
-
Determine the installed version of the XOCL driverRun 'modinfo xocl' on Linux, check driver properties in Device Manager on Windows, or use 'kextstat -b com.xilinx.xocl' on macOS to retrieve version information.Affected if The driver version cannot be determined or is earlier than the patched version provided by the vendor.
-
Check for user access to the driver deviceInspect device file permissions (ls -la /dev/xocl or similar) and driver access controls. Verify which users or groups have read/write access to the driver interface.Affected if Untrusted local users have access to the XOCL driver interface or device file.
-
Audit driver configuration for input validation settingsReview driver configuration files, registry keys (Windows), or module parameters (Linux) that control input handling in the XOCL driver. Look for settings related to buffer sizes, data transfer limits, or validation modes.Affected if Input validation is disabled or set to permissive modes in the driver configuration.
The system is affected if the XOCL driver is loaded and accessible to untrusted local users, and the driver version is older than the vendor-provided patched version that addresses the integer overflow vulnerability.
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 dataApply vendor-provided patches for the XOCL driver. If no patch exists, limit local access to trusted users and consider compensating controls such as application allowlisting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $3,984.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-52538 — 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-2025-52538 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