CyberSecBulletin
CVE-2025-68137NVD status: Analyzed

everest-core: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input

Published Updated By the CyberSecBulletin desk

CVE-2025-68137 is a high-severity buffer copy without checking size of input vulnerability in everest-core from EVerest, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.3 out of 10. It can be exploited from the same local network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected everest-core versions: < 2025.10.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 1.31% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 71% of scored CVEs.

Next patch cycle

High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.

What to do

  1. Update Everest to 2025.10.0 or a later version.
  2. Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.

Affected products and versions

VendorProductAffected versionsFixed in
EVeresteverest-core< 2025.10.0Not stated
Linux FoundationEverestbefore 2025.10.02025.10.0

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.
Privileges required
NoneNo account or login is needed.
User interaction
NoneNo action by a victim is required.
Scope
ChangedThe attack can reach beyond the vulnerable component into other systems.
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:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (github.com).

Official description

EVerest is an EV charging software stack. Prior to version 2025.10.0, an integer overflow occurring in `SdpPacket::parse_header()` allows the current buffer length to be set to 7 after a complete header of size 8 has been read. The remaining length to read is computed using the current length subtracted by the header length which results in a negative value. This value is then interpreted as `SIZE_MAX` (or slightly less) because the expected type of the argument is `size_t`. Depending on whether the server is plain TCP or TLS, this leads to either an infinite loop or a stack buffer overflow. Version 2025.10.0 fixes the issue.

Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.

The underlying weakness: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input

The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output 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.

More Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities (CWE-120)

Timeline

  1. CVE record published.
  2. CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: poc, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
  3. Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).

References

Other vulnerabilities in everest-core

All everest-core vulnerabilities

Recent Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities

Spotted an error? Tell us.