CVE-2025-39989

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 2025-04-18. NVD baseline CVSS 5.5; sources differ by 0.0.

Triggered by: GitHub Security Advisory CVSS
Sources: EPSS, GitHub Security Advisory, NVD CVSS v3
Trending — 4 sources updated this week

Also known asEUVD-2025-11814 (ENISA EUVD) · GHSA-vwg7-hhf5-ff3g (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:

x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context

Patch series "mm/hwpoison: Fix regressions in memory failure handling", v4.

1. What am I trying to do:

This patchset resolves two critical regressions related to memory failure handling that have appeared in the upstream kernel since version 5.17, as compared to 5.10 LTS.

  • copyin case: poison found in user page while kernel copying from user space
  • instr case: poison found while instruction fetching in user space

2. What is the expected outcome and why

  • For copyin case:

Kernel can recover from poison found where kernel is doing get_user() or copy_from_user() if those places get an error return and the kernel return -EFAULT to the process instead of crashing. More specifily, MCE handler checks the fixup handler type to decide whether an in kernel #MC can be recovered. When EX_TYPE_UACCESS is found, the PC jumps to recovery code specified in _ASM_EXTABLE_FAULT() and return a -EFAULT to user space.

  • For instr case:

If a poison found while instruction fetching in user space, full recovery is possible. User process takes #PF, Linux allocates a new page and fills by reading from storage.

3. What actually happens and why

  • For copyin case: kernel panic since v5.17

Commit 4c132d1d844a ("x86/futex: Remove .fixup usage") introduced a new extable fixup type, EX_TYPE_EFAULT_REG, and later patches updated the extable fixup type for copy-from-user operations, changing it from EX_TYPE_UACCESS to EX_TYPE_EFAULT_REG. It breaks previous EX_TYPE_UACCESS handling when posion found in get_user() or copy_from_user().

  • For instr case: user process is killed by a SIGBUS signal due to #CMCI
and #MCE race

When an uncorrected memory error is consumed there is a race between the CMCI from the memory controller reporting an uncorrected error with a UCNA signature, and the core reporting and SRAR signature machine check when the data is about to be consumed.

Background: why *UN*corrected errors tied to *C*MCI in Intel platform [1]

Prior to Icelake memory controllers reported patrol scrub events that detected a previously unseen uncorrected error in memory by signaling a broadcast machine check with an SRAO (Software Recoverable Action Optional) signature in the machine check bank. This was overkill because it's not an urgent problem that no core is on the verge of consuming that bad data. It's also found that multi SRAO UCE may cause nested MCE interrupts and finally become an IERR.

Hence, Intel downgrades the machine check bank signature of patrol scrub from SRAO to UCNA (Uncorrected, No Action required), and signal changed to #CMCI. Just to add to the confusion, Linux does take an action (in uc_decode_notifier()) to try to offline the page despite the UC*NA* signature name.

Background: why #CMCI and #MCE race when poison is consuming in

Intel platform [1]

Having decided that CMCI/UCNA is the best action for patrol scrub errors, the memory controller uses it for reads too. But the memory controller is executing asynchronously from the core, and can't tell the difference between a "real" read and a speculative read. So it will do CMCI/UCNA if an error is found in any read.

Thus:

1) Core is clever and thinks address A is needed soon, issues a speculative read.

2) Core finds it is going to use address A soon after sending the read request

3) The CMCI from the memory controller is in a race with MCE from the core that will soon try to retire the load from address A.

Quite often (because speculation has got better) the CMCI from the memory controller is delivered before the core is committed to the instruction reading address A, so the interrupt is taken, and Linux offlines the page (marking it as poison).

Why user process is killed for instr case

Commit 046545a661af ("mm/hwpoison: fix error page recovered but reported "not ---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
15th
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 18, 2025

Last Modified

October 30, 2026

Advisory Details (6)

Auto-updated Oct 30, 2026
Patch available.
Web page

x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/7a1168257e81954fa1b5b1ce86f47d2567e734ab
Web page

x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/5724654a084f701dc64b08d34a0e800f22f0e6e4
Web page

x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/449413da90a337f343cc5a73070cbd68e92e8a54
Web page

x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/3e3d8169c0950a0b3cd5105f6403a78350dcac80
Web page

x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/1a15bb8303b6b104e78028b6c68f76a0d4562134
Web page

x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context - kernel/git/stable/linux.git - Linux kernel stable tree

https://git.kernel.org/stable/c/0b8388e97ba6a8c033f9a8b5565af41af07f9345

Vendor Advisories for CVE-2025-39989(2)

These vendors published their own advisory mentioning this CVE — often with vendor-specific remediation steps + affected product lists not in NVD.

Patch Availability(24)

Vendor / EcosystemFix (by version range) / PatchReleasedSource
ubuntulinux-virtual-hwe-24.04-edge (6.14.0-22.22) @ plucky2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure (6.14.0-1007.7) @ plucky2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-virtual-hwe-24.04-edge (6.11.0-28.28) @ oracular2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-oem-24.04b (6.11.0-1024.24) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-lowlatency-64k (6.11.0-1015.16) @ oracular2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-lowlatency-hwe-20.04-edge (6.8.0-100.100.1) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-6.11 (6.11.0-1018.18) @ oracular2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-virtual-6.8 (6.8.0-100.100) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-gcp-edge (6.8.0-1047.50~22.04.2) @ jammy2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-realtime-6.8.1 (6.8.1-1041.42) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-fips-6.8 (6.8.0-100.100+fips1) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-gcp-fips-6.8 (6.8.0-1047.50+fips1) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-virtual-hwe-22.04-edge (6.8.0-100.100~22.04.1) @ jammy2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-nvidia-lowlatency-64k-6.8 (6.8.0-1046.49.1) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-ibm-lts-24.04 (6.8.0-1044.44) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-xilinx-zynqmp (6.8.0.1023.24) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-fips-6.8 (6.8.0-1046.52+fips1) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-edge (6.8.0-1051.57~22.04.1) @ jammy2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-realtime-hwe-22.04 (6.8.1-1041.42~22.04.1) @ jammy2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-oracle-lts-24.04 (6.8.0-1043.44) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-oracle-64k (6.14.0-1007.7) @ plucky2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-gke-64k-6.8 (6.8.0-1043.48) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
ubuntulinux-tools-azure-lts-24.04 (6.8.0-1046.52) @ noble2026-10-30ubuntu
linuxKernel @ 6.6.89 (fixes >=5.17.0)—osv

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

(3 across 3 ecosystems)
Debian:12(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux6.1.106-1 ... 7.2~rc7-1~exp1 (350 versions)
  • every version on: no fix on record
—
Debian:13(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.12.25-1: fixed in 6.12.25-1
—
Debian:14(1)
PackageVulnerable rangeFix by version rangeDependents
linux—
  • every version up to 6.12.25-1: fixed in 6.12.25-1
—

Weakness Classification(1)

MITRE Common Weakness Enumeration — the root-cause categories this CVE belongs to.

Additional Vendor Advisories

(23)

Data Freshness Timeline

(refreshed 12× in last 7d / 44× 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 98 of 197 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. 2 repeat rows among the latest 100 are merged into the row they repeat. The 99 oldest rows on record are not shown and were not checked, so the counts can still include repeats.

  1. 2026-11-02 16:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 15th percentile
  2. 2026-11-01 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 15th percentile
  3. 2026-10-31 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 15th percentile
  4. 2026-10-30 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 15th percentile
  5. 2026-10-30 13:35 UTCVendor advisory
  6. 2026-10-30 13:35 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vwg7-hhf5-ff3g · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  7. 2026-10-30 12:33 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-30 12:33 UTCVendor advisory
  9. 2026-10-30 12:33 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vwg7-hhf5-ff3g · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  10. 2026-10-29 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 15th percentile
  11. 2026-10-28 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 15th percentile
  12. 2026-10-27 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 15th percentile
  13. 2026-10-26 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 15th percentile
  14. 2026-10-25 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 15th percentile
  15. 2026-10-25 16:28 UTCEG score recompute
  16. 2026-10-24 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  17. 2026-10-23 20:04 UTCEG score recompute
  18. 2026-10-23 20:04 UTCVendor advisory
  19. 2026-10-23 20:03 UTCGHSA enrichmentGHSA-vwg7-hhf5-ff3g · GitHub CVSS 5.5
  20. 2026-10-23 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  21. 2026-10-22 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  22. 2026-10-21 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  23. 2026-10-20 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  24. 2026-10-19 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  25. 2026-10-18 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
Show 73 more
  1. 2026-10-18 05:35 UTCEG score recompute
  2. 2026-10-17 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  3. 2026-10-16 16:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  4. 2026-10-15 16:30 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  5. 2026-10-14 16:31 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  6. 2026-10-13 16:32 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  7. 2026-10-12 17:06 UTCEG score recompute
  8. 2026-10-12 16:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  9. 2026-10-11 20:39 UTCEG score recompute
  10. 2026-10-11 18:50 UTCEG score recompute
  11. 2026-10-11 15:27 UTCEG score recompute
  12. 2026-10-11 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  13. 2026-10-10 19:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  14. 2026-10-09 20:06 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  15. 2026-10-08 17:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  16. 2026-10-07 23:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  17. 2026-10-06 15:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  18. 2026-10-05 17:42 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  19. 2026-10-04 23:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  20. 2026-10-03 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  21. 2026-10-02 17:10 UTCOSV refresh
  22. 2026-10-01 19:49 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  23. 2026-09-30 15:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  24. 2026-09-28 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  25. 2026-09-26 15:58 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  26. 2026-09-26 00:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  27. 2026-09-24 14:02 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  28. 2026-09-23 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 16th percentile
  29. 2026-09-20 20:15 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 16th percentile
  30. 2026-09-18 19:27 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 16th percentile
  31. 2026-09-17 19:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 16th percentile
  32. 2026-09-16 14:07 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 16th percentile
  33. 2026-09-16 05:14 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 16th percentile
  34. 2026-09-13 16:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  35. 2026-09-13 14:43 UTCOSV refresh
  36. 2026-09-12 15:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  37. 2026-09-11 14:52 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  38. 2026-09-11 09:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  39. 2026-09-10 09:33 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  40. 2026-09-08 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  41. 2026-09-07 16:00 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  42. 2026-09-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  43. 2026-09-04 05:05 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  44. 2026-09-02 14:11 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  45. 2026-09-01 13:53 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  46. 2026-09-01 04:38 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  47. 2026-08-30 19:16 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  48. 2026-08-30 01:21 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  49. 2026-08-28 21:40 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  50. 2026-08-27 14:24 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  51. 2026-08-26 14:45 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  52. 2026-08-25 16:09 UTCOSV refresh
  53. 2026-08-25 13:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  54. 2026-08-23 00:18 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  55. 2026-08-21 23:48 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  56. 2026-08-20 22:54 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  57. 2026-08-19 17:03 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  58. 2026-08-18 13:47 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  59. 2026-08-17 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  60. 2026-08-16 14:55 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  61. 2026-08-16 02:13 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  62. 2026-08-15 01:29 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  63. 2026-08-13 21:59 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  64. 2026-08-12 13:50 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  65. 2026-08-09 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 13th percentile
  66. 2026-08-09 07:57 UTCOSV refresh
  67. 2026-08-08 16:36 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 13th percentile
  68. 2026-08-07 16:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 13th percentile
  69. 2026-08-06 13:46 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  70. 2026-08-04 15:09 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  71. 2026-08-04 10:37 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  72. 2026-08-03 10:35 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile
  73. 2026-08-02 02:26 UTCEPSS rescoreEPSS 0.2% · 14th percentile

Frequently asked(5)

What is CVE-2025-39989?
CVE-2025-39989 is a medium-severity vulnerability; its CVE record was published on April 18, 2025. In the Linux kernel, the following vulnerability has been resolved: x86/mce: use is_copy_from_user() to determine copy-from-user context Patch series "mm/hwpoison: Fix regressions in memory failure handling", v4. 1. What am I trying to do: This patchset resolves two critical regressions related to…
When was the CVE record for CVE-2025-39989 published?
The CVE record for CVE-2025-39989 was published on April 18, 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, 2026; the record at its source may have been updated since.
Is CVE-2025-39989 actively exploited?
CVE-2025-39989 is not currently on CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog. FIRST EPSS estimates a 0.2% probability of exploitation in the next 30 days (15th percentile of EPSS-scored CVEs).
What is the CVSS score of CVE-2025-39989?
CVE-2025-39989 has a CVSS v3 base score of 5.5 (NVD).
How do I remediate CVE-2025-39989?
A fix for CVE-2025-39989 is available: update to the fixed version the vendor names in its advisory. The vendor advisories EchelonGraph has for CVE-2025-39989 are linked in the Vendor Advisories panel on this page.

Dependency Blast Radius

See which npm, PyPI, Go, and Maven packages are affected by CVE-2025-39989

Explore →

Is Your Infrastructure Affected by CVE-2025-39989?

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