CVE-2025-2720 (GCVE-0-2025-2720)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2025-03-24 23:31 – Updated: 2025-03-27 06:03
VLAI?

** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: According to the code maintainer the call of the POC is invalid because the buffer pointed to by "data" must have "len" valid bytes. The docs were updated to make that clear.

Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "cna": {
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2025-03-27T06:03:42.304Z",
        "orgId": "1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5",
        "shortName": "VulDB"
      },
      "rejectedReasons": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: According to the code maintainer the call of the POC is invalid because the buffer pointed to by \"data\" must have \"len\" valid bytes. The docs were updated to make that clear."
        }
      ]
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5",
    "assignerShortName": "VulDB",
    "cveId": "CVE-2025-2720",
    "datePublished": "2025-03-24T23:31:06.804Z",
    "dateRejected": "2025-03-27T06:03:42.304Z",
    "dateReserved": "2025-03-24T12:46:16.447Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2025-03-27T06:03:42.304Z",
    "state": "REJECTED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1",
  "vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
    "nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2025-2720\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"cna@vuldb.com\",\"published\":\"2025-03-25T00:15:15.500\",\"lastModified\":\"2025-03-27T06:15:29.720\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Rejected\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"Rejected reason: ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: According to the code maintainer the call of the POC is invalid because the buffer pointed to by \\\"data\\\" must have \\\"len\\\" valid bytes. The docs were updated to make that clear.\"}],\"metrics\":{},\"references\":[]}}",
    "vulnrichment": {
      "containers": "{\"cna\": {\"providerMetadata\": {\"orgId\": \"1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5\", \"shortName\": \"VulDB\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-03-27T06:03:42.304Z\"}, \"rejectedReasons\": [{\"lang\": \"en\", \"value\": \"** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: According to the code maintainer the call of the POC is invalid because the buffer pointed to by \\\"data\\\" must have \\\"len\\\" valid bytes. The docs were updated to make that clear.\"}]}}",
      "cveMetadata": "{\"cveId\": \"CVE-2025-2720\", \"assignerOrgId\": \"1af790b2-7ee1-4545-860a-a788eba489b5\", \"state\": \"REJECTED\", \"assignerShortName\": \"VulDB\", \"dateReserved\": \"2025-03-24T12:46:16.447Z\", \"datePublished\": \"2025-03-24T23:31:06.804Z\", \"dateUpdated\": \"2025-03-27T06:03:42.304Z\", \"dateRejected\": \"2025-03-27T06:03:42.304Z\"}",
      "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
      "dataVersion": "5.1"
    }
  }
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.



Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.