CVE-2025-6093
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 classified as critical was found in uYanki board-stm32f103rc-berial up to 84daed541609cb7b46854cc6672a275d1007e295. This vulnerability affects the function heartrate1_i2c_hal_write of the file 7.Example/hal/i2c/max30100/Manual/demo2/2/heartrate1_hal.c. The manipulation of the argument num leads to stack-based buffer overflow. Continious delivery with rolling releases is used by this product. Therefore, no version details of affected nor updated releases are available.
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 confidenceStack-based buffer overflow in the heartrate1_i2c_hal_write function within the MAX30100 heart rate sensor HAL driver for STM32F103RC. The num argument passed to this I2C write operation is not properly bounds-checked before being used as an index or size parameter for a stack buffer, allowing adjacent memory on the stack to be overwritten.
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
- Adjacent
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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 MAX30100 sensor driver usageSearch firmware codebase for references to MAX30100, heartrate1_i2c_hal_write, or related heart rate sensor driver filesAffected if Firmware includes the MAX30100 heart rate sensor HAL driver for STM32F103RC
-
Locate the vulnerable functionSearch for the heartrate1_i2c_hal_write function definition in driver source codeAffected if The function exists and processes the num argument without bounds checking
-
Verify num parameter handlingInspect the function code to see if num argument is validated against buffer size before use as index or size parameterAffected if No bounds check or inadequate validation exists on the num argument before buffer access
-
Check for stack protection compilation flagsReview build configuration or makefile for compiler flags such as -fstack-protector or -fstack-protector-allAffected if Stack protection is disabled and the vulnerable function is present in the firmware
-
Confirm STM32F103RC target usageVerify the firmware is built for STM32F103RC microcontroller by checking linker scripts, makefiles, or board configurationAffected if The target hardware is STM32F103RC and the vulnerable driver is compiled into the firmware
A system is affected if it uses the MAX30100 heart rate sensor HAL driver on STM32F103RC with the heartrate1_i2c_hal_write function that lacks proper bounds validation on the num argument.
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 dataImplement strict bounds validation on the num argument before buffer access in heartrate1_i2c_hal_write; ensure num does not exceed the allocated buffer size. Additionally, enable compiler-level stack protection features (-fstack-protector) and consider adding stack canaries for future firmware builds.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-6093 — 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-2025-6093 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