CVE-2025-62672
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 · uneditedrplay through 3.3.2 allows attackers to cause a denial of service (SIGSEGV and daemon crash) or possibly have unspecified other impact. This occurs in memcpy in the RPLAY_DATA case in rplay_unpack in librplay/rplay.c, potentially reachable via packet data with no authentication.
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 confidenceThe rplay daemon through version 3.3.2 contains a memory corruption vulnerability in the RPLAY_DATA case within the rplay_unpack function in librplay/rplay.c. The memcpy call uses untrusted length/data from incoming packets without proper bounds validation, allowing an unauthenticated remote attacker to send specially crafted packets that cause a SIGSEGV crash or potentially achieve code execution.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Check if rplay daemon is installedRun 'dpkg -l | grep rplay' (Debian) or 'rpm -qa | grep rplay' (RHEL) or 'which rplayd' to find the rplay package or daemon binaryAffected if rplay is installed and the version is 3.3.2 or lower
-
Determine the installed rplay versionRun 'rplayd -v' or check the package version with 'dpkg -s rplay' / 'rpm -qi rplay' and compare the version number to 3.3.2Affected if The installed version is 3.3.2 or any version lower than 3.3.2 (the vulnerability affects versions through 3.3.2)
-
Verify if rplay daemon is running and exposed to the networkRun 'ps aux | grep rplayd' to check if the daemon is running, then run 'netstat -tlnp | grep rplay' or 'ss -tlnp | grep rplay' to see which network ports the daemon is listening onAffected if rplayd is running and listening on a network-facing port (the vulnerability is exploitable via remote unauthenticated packets)
-
Confirm the vulnerable code path existsIf librplay source is available, inspect librplay/rplay.c and locate the rplay_unpack function, specifically the RPLAY_DATA case with the memcpy call using untrusted length fieldsAffected if The code contains the RPLAY_DATA case in rplay_unpack without proper bounds validation on the packet length before memcpy
A user is affected if rplay version 3.3.2 or lower is installed, the daemon is running and network-accessible, and the vulnerable rplay_unpack function handles incoming packets without bounds checking.
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 proper bounds checking on packet length fields before the memcpy call, validate that the source data size does not exceed the destination buffer size, and consider adding authentication for remote packet processing if this is a network service.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-62672 — 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-2025-62672 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