MPEG-DASH: Out-of-bounds Write
CVE-2025-59728 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in MPEG-DASH from FFmpeg, with a CVSS 4.0 base score of 8.7 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. The record lists version 8.0 as the first without the flaw, so updating MPEG-DASH to that release or later removes the exposure. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.19% 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
- Update MPEG-DASH to 8.0 or a later version.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| FFmpeg | MPEG-DASH | 7.1.1 up to, but not including, 8.0; a218cafe4d3be005ab0c61130f90db4d21afb5db up to, but not including, 8.0 | 8.0 |
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
- HighSuccess depends on conditions outside the attacker's control.
- Attack requirements
- NoneThe attack does not depend on a particular deployment or configuration.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on the vulnerable system.
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on the vulnerable system.
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- NoneNo loss of availability on the vulnerable system.
- Confidentiality (other systems)
- HighSerious loss of confidentiality on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Integrity (other systems)
- HighSerious loss of integrity on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
- Availability (other systems)
- NoneNo loss of availability on systems beyond the vulnerable one.
Vector: CVSS:4.0/AV:A/AC:H/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:H/VI:H/VA:N/SC:H/SI:H/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. Scored by CNA (google.com).
Official description
When calculating the content path in handling of MPEG-DASH manifests, there's an out-of-bounds NUL-byte write one byte past the end of the buffer.When we call xmlNodeGetContent below [0], it returns a buffer precisely allocated to match the string length, using strdup internally. If this buffer is not an empty string, it is assigned to root_url at [1].If the last (non-NUL) byte in this buffer is not '/' then we append '/' in-place at [2]. This will write two bytes into the buffer, starting at the last valid byte in the buffer, writing the NUL byte beyond the end of the allocated buffer. We recommend upgrading to version 8.0 or beyond.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
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 Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities
- 8.7 High severity
- 8.7 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.