CVE-2025-7776
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 · uneditedMemory overflow vulnerability leading to unpredictable or erroneous behavior and Denial of Service in NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway when NetScaler is configured as a Gateway (VPN virtual server, ICA Proxy, CVPN, RDP Proxy) with PCoIP Profile bounded to it
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 memory overflow vulnerability in NetScaler ADC and NetScaler Gateway when configured as a Gateway (VPN virtual server, ICA Proxy, CVPN, or RDP Proxy) with a PCoIP Profile bound to it. The overflow can lead to unpredictable or erroneous behavior and potentially complete Denial of Service.
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>= 12.1, < 12.1-55.330>= 13.1, < 13.1-37.241>= 13.1, < 13.1-59.22>= 14.1, < 14.1-47.48>= 13.1, < 13.1-59.22>= 14.1, < 14.1-47.48CVSS 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.
-
Check NetScaler versionRun 'show version' command from the NetScaler CLI or check System > Diagnostics > Show Version in the GUI. Note the full build number (for example, 13.1-37.47 or 14.1-47.42).Affected if The installed version falls within any of these ranges: 12.1 (any build >= 12.1 but < 12.1-55.330); 13.1 (any build >= 13.1 but < 13.1-37.241 OR >= 13.1-59.22 but < 13.1-59.22); 14.1 (any build >= 14.1 but < 14.1-47.48). Note that versions 13.1-37.241 through 13.1-59.21 are also affected.
-
Verify Gateway configuration existsRun 'show vpn vserver' to list all VPN virtual servers, or 'show lb vserver | grep -E "ICA|CVPN|RDP"' to find ICA Proxy, CVPN, or RDP Proxy configured virtual servers.Affected if Any VPN virtual server, ICA Proxy, CVPN, or RDP Proxy virtual server is configured and enabled on the appliance.
-
Check for bound PCoIP ProfileRun 'show pcoip profile' to list all PCoIP profiles configured. Then for each Gateway vserver identified in step 2, run 'show vpn vserver <name>' or 'show lb vserver <name>' and look for a PCoIP profile bound under the Profile or Advanced Settings section.Affected if A PCoIP profile is bound to any Gateway virtual server (VPN, ICA Proxy, CVPN, or RDP Proxy). The vulnerability requires both the Gateway configuration AND the PCoIP profile binding to be present.
The environment is affected only if: (1) the NetScaler ADC or Gateway version is in the affected range, (2) a Gateway-type virtual server (VPN, ICA Proxy, CVPN, or RDP Proxy) is configured, AND (3) a PCoIP Profile is bound to that Gateway configuration. All three conditions must be true for the vulnerability to be exploitable.
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 · scoped12.1-55.33013.1-37.24113.1-59.22
Apply vendor patches from Citrix when available. As immediate mitigation, avoid binding PCoIP Profiles to Gateway configurations or temporarily disable Gateway functionality until the patch can be applied.
Upgrade to NetScaler 14.1-47.48 (or 13.1-59.22 for 13.x branches, or 12.1-55.330 for 12.x)
- Review current NetScaler ADC and Gateway configurations to identify if PCoIP Profile is bound to any VPN virtual server, ICA Proxy, CVPN, or RDP Proxy
- Backup current NetScaler configuration before performing upgrade
- Download the appropriate fixed build for your current major version: 12.1-55.330, 13.1-59.22, or 14.1-47.48 from the Citrix downloads portal
- Upgrade NetScaler ADC/Gateway to the fixed version following standard Citrix upgrade procedures
- After upgrade, verify the PCoIP Profile configuration is intact and functioning
- Monitor system logs and performance for any anomalies
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,408.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-7776 — 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-2025-7776 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