GL-A1300 Slate Plus: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
CVE-2025-2851 is a high-severity improper restriction of operations within the bounds of a memory buffer vulnerability in GL-A1300 Slate Plus from GL.iNet, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.0 out of 10. It can be exploited from the same local network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected GL-A1300 Slate Plus versions: 4.x. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.4% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of GL-A1300 Slate Plus you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on gl-inet.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| GL.iNet | GL-A1300 Slate Plus | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-AR300M16 Shadow | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-AR300M Shadow | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-AR750 Creta | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-AR750S-EXT Slate | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-AX1800 Flint | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-AXT1800 Slate AX | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-B1300 Convexa-B | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-B3000 Marble | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-BE3600 Slate 7 | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-E750 | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-E750V2 Mudi | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-MT300N-V2 Mango | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-MT1300 Beryl | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-MT2500 Brume 2 | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-MT3000 Beryl AX | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-MT6000 Flint 2 | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-SFT1200 Opal | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-X300B Collie | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-X750 Spitz | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-X3000 Spitz AX | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-XE300 Puli | 4.x | Not stated |
| GL.iNet | GL-XE3000 Puli AX | 4.x | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- AdjacentThe attacker must be on the same local network segment.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (vuldb.com).
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 4.0 | 8.6 | High | CNA (vuldb.com) |
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.0 | High | CNA (vuldb.com) |
| CVSS 2.0 | 7.7 | High | CNA (vuldb.com) |
Official description
A vulnerability classified as critical has been found in GL.iNet GL-A1300 Slate Plus, GL-AR300M16 Shadow, GL-AR300M Shadow, GL-AR750 Creta, GL-AR750S-EXT Slate, GL-AX1800 Flint, GL-AXT1800 Slate AX, GL-B1300 Convexa-B, GL-B3000 Marble, GL-BE3600 Slate 7, GL-E750, GL-E750V2 Mudi, GL-MT300N-V2 Mango, GL-MT1300 Beryl, GL-MT2500 Brume 2, GL-MT3000 Beryl AX, GL-MT6000 Flint 2, GL-SFT1200 Opal, GL-X300B Collie, GL-X750 Spitz, GL-X3000 Spitz AX, GL-XE300 Puli and GL-XE3000 Puli AX 4.x. Affected is an unknown function of the file plugins.so of the component RPC Handler. The manipulation leads to buffer overflow. It is recommended to upgrade the affected component.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer
The product performs operations on a memory buffer, but it reads from or writes to a memory location outside the buffer's intended boundary.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other references
Recent Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer vulnerabilities
- 7.3 High severity
- 8.0 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.