CVE-2025-65080
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 type confusion vulnerability has been identified in the Postscript interpreter in various Lexmark devices. This vulnerability can be leveraged by an attacker to execute arbitrary code as an unprivileged user.
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 confidenceA type confusion vulnerability exists in the Postscript interpreter of Lexmark devices. This flaw allows an attacker to manipulate how the interpreter handles data types, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution as an unprivileged user context.
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
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
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 Lexmark devices on the networkReview network inventory or scan for Lexmark printer MAC/vendor signatures. Check DHCP logs or use nmap with service detection: nmap -sV <target> to identify Lexmark devices.Affected if No Lexmark devices are present in the environment, the CVE does not apply.
-
Verify Postscript interpreter is enabledAccess the printer web interface or check via SNMP. Look for settings under 'Print Settings', 'Job Options', or 'PDL (Page Description Language) configurations'. Confirm 'PostScript' or 'PS' is listed as an enabled/selected language.Affected if Postscript interpreter is disabled or not available on the device, the type confusion vulnerability cannot be exploited.
-
Retrieve the firmware versionVia the embedded web server: navigate to 'Support' or 'About' page. Via command line: use snmpget or Lexmark diagnostic tools. Example: snmpget -v2c -c public <device_ip> 1.3.6.1.2.1.1.1.0Affected if The installed firmware version matches or predates the unpatched version. Contact Lexmark support or refer to the security advisory for the specific fixed version number.
-
Check network exposure of printer management interfacesVerify if ports 80, 443, 9100, or SNMP (161/162) are accessible from untrusted network segments. Use nmap: nmap -p 80,443,9100,161,162 <device_ip>. Review firewall rules and VLAN assignments.Affected if The printer management interfaces are exposed to untrusted users or networks, increasing exploitability.
Your environment is affected if you have a Lexmark device with Postscript interpreter enabled running an unpatched firmware version, particularly if the device is network-accessible to potential attackers.
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 available firmware updates from Lexmark for affected devices. Restrict network access to printer management interfaces and disable Postscript interpreter if not required.
- Consultation4.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-65080 — 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-2025-65080 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