CVE-2025-21977

MEDIUMNVD 5.55.5
EchelonGraph scoreMEDIUM confidence

“—” beside the score: it is equal to NVD's CVSS score.

Score 5.5 from GitHub Security Advisory published 2025-04-01. NVD baseline CVSS 5.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3

Also known asEUVD-2025-9343 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-fcxj-8496-8247 (GitHub Security Advisories)Source: ENISA EUVD

5.5EG
EchelonGraph verdictMonitorRemediate within your standard update timelines (the SSVC decision on this page).
  • Lower severity and no public exploit yet
CISA-KEV: Not listedEPSS PROB: 0.2%CVSS: 5.5Exploit: None knownExposed services: Not assessed

A fix is available — apply it.

In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved:

fbdev: hyperv_fb: Fix hang in kdump kernel when on Hyper-V Gen 2 VMs

Gen 2 Hyper-V VMs boot via EFI and have a standard EFI framebuffer device. When the kdump kernel runs in such a VM, loading the efifb driver may hang because of accessing the framebuffer at the wrong memory address.

The scenario occurs when the hyperv_fb driver in the original kernel moves the framebuffer to a different MMIO address because of conflicts with an already-running efifb or simplefb driver. The hyperv_fb driver then informs Hyper-V of the change, which is allowed by the Hyper-V FB VMBus device protocol. However, when the kexec command loads the kdump kernel into crash memory via the kexec_file_load() system call, the system call doesn't know the framebuffer has moved, and it sets up the kdump screen_info using the original framebuffer address. The transition to the kdump kernel does not go through the Hyper-V host, so Hyper-V does not reset the framebuffer address like it would do on a reboot. When efifb tries to run, it accesses a non-existent framebuffer address, which traps to the Hyper-V host. After many such accesses, the Hyper-V host thinks the guest is being malicious, and throttles the guest to the point that it runs very slowly or appears to have hung.

When the kdump kernel is loaded into crash memory via the kexec_load() system call, the problem does not occur. In this case, the kexec command builds the screen_info table itself in user space from data returned by the FBIOGET_FSCREENINFO ioctl against /dev/fb0, which gives it the new framebuffer location.

This problem was originally reported in 2020 [1], resulting in commit 3cb73bc3fa2a ("hyperv_fb: Update screen_info after removing old framebuffer"). This commit solved the problem by setting orig_video_isVGA to 0, so the kdump kernel was unaware of the EFI framebuffer. The efifb driver did not try to load, and no hang occurred. But in 2024, commit c25a19afb81c ("fbdev/hyperv_fb: Do not clear global screen_info") effectively reverted 3cb73bc3fa2a. Commit c25a19afb81c has no reference to 3cb73bc3fa2a, so perhaps it was done without knowing the implications that were reported with 3cb73bc3fa2a. In any case, as of commit c25a19afb81c, the original problem came back again.

Interestingly, the hyperv_drm driver does not have this problem because it never moves the framebuffer. The difference is that the hyperv_drm driver removes any conflicting framebuffers *before* allocating an MMIO address, while the hyperv_fb drivers removes conflicting framebuffers *after* allocating an MMIO address. With the "after" ordering, hyperv_fb may encounter a conflict and move the framebuffer to a different MMIO address. But the conflict is essentially bogus because it is removed a few lines of code later.

Rather than fix the problem with the approach from 2020 in commit 3cb73bc3fa2a, instead slightly reorder the steps in hyperv_fb so conflicting framebuffers are removed before allocating an MMIO address. Then the default framebuffer MMIO address should always be available, and there's never any confusion about which framebuffer address the kdump kernel should use -- it's always the original address provided by the Hyper-V host. This approach is already used by the hyperv_drm driver, and is consistent with the usage guidelines at the head of the module with the function aperture_remove_conflicting_devices().

This approach also solves a related minor problem when kexec_load() is used to load the kdump kernel. With current code, unbinding and rebinding the hyperv_fb driver could result in the framebuffer moving back to the default framebuffer address, because on the rebind there are no conflicts. If such a move is done after the kdump kernel is loaded with the new framebuffer address, at kdump time it could again have the wrong address.

This problem and fix are described in terms of the kdump kernel, but it can also occur ---truncated---

CVSS v3
5.5
EG Score
5.5MEDIUMmedium confidence
EG Risk
25
EG Risk 25/100

EG Risk is EchelonGraph's 0–100 priority score. It fuses impact severity (EG Severity, the CVSS base score, never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score) with real-world exploitation and automatability, under weights EchelonGraph set by hand, so you can rank equal-severity CVEs and fix the most dangerous first. Higher = act sooner.

How it’s computed (value × EchelonGraph’s weight)
Severity55% × 45%
Impact severity (EG Severity): CVSS 5.5 of 10. Never the KEV-floored or EPSS-lifted EG Score.
Exploitation0.2% × 40%
FIRST EPSS: the 30-day exploitation probability when EchelonGraph scored this CVE.
Automatability0% × 15%
CISA's BOD 26-04 default: no one has published Automatable for this CVE, and CISA treats it as “no” for a CVE not in KEV.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph): Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).
Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE.
Action: A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.
EPSS PROB
0.2%
EPSS %ILE
8th
KEV
Not listed

What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)

The EG score (5.5): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 5.5 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.

EG Severity
5.5 MEDIUMCVSS-B, impact only: no KEV listing, EPSS or EG-KEV tier raises it.GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
EG Likelihood
0.2% within 30 daysSource: FIRST EPSS. FIRST's exploitation probability, not an EchelonGraph model.
Confirmed exploitation
None on record (CISA KEV, EG-KEV Tier 1)Reported apart from the likelihood: an observed fact, not a probability.
EG Priority
SSVC Track at medium mission impactTrack at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).CISA BOD 26-04: 14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.Each input and its source, and whom BOD 26-04 binds: the SSVC and BOD 26-04 blocks below.

SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at low or medium mission impact; Track* at high (mission-essential systems).

A fix is available. Apply it within your standard update timelines.

Exploitation none (no CISA value, KEV listing or exploit code on record) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). EchelonGraph holds no SSVC assessment of this CVE from CISA: none of these inputs is from Vulnrichment. EchelonGraph applied CISA's decision table to them; CISA publishes SSVC inputs and the table, not a decision for each CVE. Mission impact is CISA's Mission & Well-being decision point, and only you can judge it. CISA's table makes it high when Mission Prevalence is Essential — the vulnerable component "directly provides capabilities that constitute at least one MEF for at least one entity" (MEF: mission essential function) — or when Public Well-Being Impact is Irreversible: "multiple fatalities are likely", the cyber-physical system "is likely lost or destroyed", "extreme or serious externalities" are imposed on other parties, or social systems such as elections or the financial grid "are destabilized and potentially collapse". CISA's decision table

BOD 26-04 (CISA's remediation timeline, Table 1)14 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.

The score's inputs: In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA's BOD 26-04 default) · Technical impact total (CISA's BOD 26-04 default). Where an input reads “CISA's BOD 26-04 default”, no one has published it for this CVE, and CISA's implementation guidance says: “If “Automatable” and “Technical Impact” information items about a CVE ID are not available and the CVE ID is not in the KEV Catalog, CISA will treat its values as “no” and “total,” respectively, until CISA or a third party provides metadata about the CVE ID. CISA will always provide the Vulnrichment data for a CVE ID listed in the KEV Catalog.” Whether your system is publicly exposed is yours to answer. BOD 26-04 binds US Federal Civilian Executive Branch agencies; for anyone else it is CISA's published timeline, a reference rather than an obligation. The directive · how EchelonGraph applies it

Published

April 1, 2025

Last Modified

October 30, 2025

Patch Availability(19)

Patches are aggregated from vendor advisories (Red Hat, Microsoft, Cisco, GitHub) and package ecosystems (OSV, GHSA). Multiple rows for the same upstream release have been deduplicated.

Affected Packages

(2 across 2 ecosystems)
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.12.20-1: fixed in 6.12.20-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.12.20-1: fixed in 6.12.20-1
—

All Vendor Advisories

(18)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 7× in last 7d / 39× in last 30d)

Each row is a time one of our pipelines fetched, updated or re-scored this CVE. For example, "NVD update" means NVD published or revised its analysis for this CVE; "MITRE cvelistV5" means we ingested or refreshed it from the CNA feed. An arrow marks a change the record states ("CVSS v3 → 9.1"); EPSS and GHSA rows show the values recorded at that time, not what changed (EPSS values are rounded; hover one for the exact figures). Most recent first.

Showing the most recent 96 of 199 refreshes on record for this CVE.

A repeat, a row identical to one the same pipeline wrote less than 10 seconds earlier, is not a separate refresh and is not counted. 4 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 103 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-06 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  2. 2026-11-05 16:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  3. 2026-11-04 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  4. 2026-11-03 16:44 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  5. 2026-11-02 16:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  6. 2026-11-01 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  7. 2026-10-31 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  8. 2026-10-30 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  9. 2026-10-29 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  10. 2026-10-28 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  11. 2026-10-27 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  12. 2026-10-26 16:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  13. 2026-10-25 16:42 UTCEG score recompute
  14. 2026-10-25 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  15. 2026-10-24 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  16. 2026-10-24 01:12 UTCEG score recompute
  17. 2026-10-24 01:12 UTCVendor advisory
  18. 2026-10-24 01:12 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-fcxj-8496-8247 · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  19. 2026-10-23 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  20. 2026-10-22 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  21. 2026-10-21 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  22. 2026-10-20 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  23. 2026-10-19 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  24. 2026-10-18 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  25. 2026-10-18 05:46 UTCEG score recompute
Show 71 more
  1. 2026-10-17 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  2. 2026-10-16 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  3. 2026-10-15 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  4. 2026-10-14 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  5. 2026-10-13 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  6. 2026-10-12 17:19 UTCEG score recompute
  7. 2026-10-12 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  8. 2026-10-11 20:51 UTCEG score recompute
  9. 2026-10-11 19:01 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-11 15:41 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-11 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  12. 2026-10-10 19:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  13. 2026-10-09 20:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  14. 2026-10-08 17:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  15. 2026-10-07 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  16. 2026-10-06 15:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  17. 2026-10-05 17:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  18. 2026-10-04 23:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  19. 2026-10-03 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  20. 2026-10-02 18:40 UTCOSV refresh
  21. 2026-10-02 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  22. 2026-10-01 19:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  23. 2026-09-30 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  24. 2026-09-28 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  25. 2026-09-26 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  26. 2026-09-26 00:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  27. 2026-09-24 14:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  28. 2026-09-23 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  29. 2026-09-22 14:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  30. 2026-09-20 20:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  31. 2026-09-18 19:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  32. 2026-09-16 14:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  33. 2026-09-16 05:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  34. 2026-09-15 03:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  35. 2026-09-13 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  36. 2026-09-13 16:13 UTCOSV refresh
  37. 2026-09-12 15:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  38. 2026-09-11 14:51 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  39. 2026-09-11 09:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  40. 2026-09-10 09:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  41. 2026-09-08 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  42. 2026-09-07 16:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  43. 2026-09-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  44. 2026-09-05 15:28 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  45. 2026-09-04 05:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  46. 2026-09-02 14:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  47. 2026-09-01 13:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  48. 2026-09-01 04:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  49. 2026-08-30 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  50. 2026-08-30 01:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  51. 2026-08-28 21:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 8th percentile
  52. 2026-08-27 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  53. 2026-08-25 17:39 UTCOSV refresh
  54. 2026-08-25 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  55. 2026-08-21 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  56. 2026-08-19 17:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  57. 2026-08-18 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  58. 2026-08-17 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  59. 2026-08-16 14:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  60. 2026-08-16 02:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  61. 2026-08-15 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  62. 2026-08-13 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  63. 2026-08-12 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  64. 2026-08-10 23:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  65. 2026-08-09 13:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  66. 2026-08-09 09:44 UTCOSV refresh
  67. 2026-08-07 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  68. 2026-08-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  69. 2026-08-05 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  70. 2026-08-04 15:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile
  71. 2026-08-04 10:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 7th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2025-21977?
CVE-2025-21977 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on April 1, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: fbdev: hyperv_fb: Fix hang in kdump kernel when on Hyper-V Gen 2 VMs Gen 2 Hyper-V VMs boot via EFI and have a standard EFI framebuffer device. When the kdump kernel runs in such a VM, loading the efifb driver may hang because of…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2025-21977 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2025-21977 was published on April 1, 2025. That is the record's publication date; the vulnerability itself may have been made public earlier. EchelonGraph's copy of the record carries a last-modified date of October 30, 2025; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2025-21977 actively exploited?
CVE-2025-21977 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (8th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2025-21977?
CVE-2025-21977 has a CVSS v3 base score of 5.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2025-21977?
A fix for CVE-2025-21977 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2025-21977

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2025-21977?

EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.