“—” beside the score: it is equal to the CVSS score beside it.
This low-severity CVE scores 2.3 under a secondary CVSS source (NVD's own analysis pending). EPSS exploit probability: 0.3% (18th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs). No GitHub Security Advisory CVSS is on record for this CVE.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: Qsync Central 5.0.0.4 and later (from the CVE record's solution, QNAP Systems, Inc.) — apply it.
A buffer copy without checking size of input vulnerability has been reported to affect Qsync Central. If a remote attacker gains a user account, they can then exploit the vulnerability to modify memory or crash processes.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: Qsync Central 5.0.0.4 and later
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.
What the EG score is made of (scorer v4.0: the three questions the 0–10 score mixes, published apart · methodology)
The EG score (2.3): severity, escalated by confirmed exploitation. This CVE's 2.3 is its impact severity (EG Severity), not escalated.
SSVC (CISA's decision table, applied by EchelonGraph)Track at every mission impact level.
We have already fixed the vulnerability in the following version: Qsync Central 5.0.0.4 and later (from the CVE record's solution, QNAP Systems, Inc.). Apply it within your standard update timelines.
Exploitation none (CISA Vulnrichment) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). All three are CISA's SSVC values (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)60 days if the affected system is publicly exposed; Fix on system upgrade if it is not.
In CISA KEV no (CISA's KEV catalog) · Automatable no (CISA Vulnrichment) · Technical impact partial (CISA Vulnrichment). 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
October 15, 2026
October 19, 2026
These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.
MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.
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.
Explore the affected products and dependency analysis for CVE-2025-29897
EchelonGraph automatically scans your cloud infrastructure and maps CVE exposure using blast radius analysis.