CVE-2025-9951
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 heap-buffer-overflow write exists in jpeg2000dec FFmpeg which allows an attacker to potentially gain remote code execution or cause denial of service via the channel definition cdef atom of JPEG2000.
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 heap-buffer-overflow write vulnerability exists in the jpeg2000dec component of FFmpeg. The flaw is triggered when processing the channel definition cdef atom within JPEG2000 image files, allowing an attacker to write data beyond allocated buffer boundaries.
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
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- Authentication
- X
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- X
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/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.
-
Verify FFmpeg is installedRun 'ffmpeg -version' or 'which ffmpeg' to confirm FFmpeg is present on the systemAffected if FFmpeg is not installed - the system is not vulnerable to this specific flaw
-
Determine installed FFmpeg versionExecute 'ffmpeg -version' and capture the version number from the outputAffected if The installed version falls within the range of affected versions that contain the vulnerable jpeg2000dec code
-
Confirm jpeg2000 decoding support is enabledRun 'ffmpeg -codecs 2>/dev/null | grep -i jpeg2000' or 'ffmpeg -formats 2>/dev/null | grep -i jp2' to check if JPEG2000 decoding is availableAffected if JPEG2000 decoding is enabled and available - the vulnerable code path can be triggered
-
Identify if untrusted JPEG2000 files are processedReview application logs, file processing workflows, or user activity that involves decoding JPEG2000 images using FFmpegAffected if The system processes or decodes JPEG2000 image files from untrusted sources using FFmpeg tools
The environment is affected if FFmpeg with an unpatched version containing the vulnerable jpeg2000dec component is installed and processes JPEG2000 files containing a maliciously crafted cdef atom.
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 dataUpdate FFmpeg to the latest version containing the security fix for CVE-2025-9951. Until patched, avoid processing untrusted JPEG2000 files with FFmpeg tools.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,224.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-9951 — 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-2025-9951 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