CVE Vulnerabilities

CVE-2025-8065

Uncontrolled Resource Consumption

Published: Dec 20, 2025 | Modified: Jan 08, 2026
CVSS 3.x
6.5
MEDIUM
Source:
NVD
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
CVSS 2.x
RedHat/V2
RedHat/V3
Ubuntu
root.io logo minimus.io logo echo.ai logo

A buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the ONVIF XML parser of Tapo C200 V3. An unauthenticated attacker on the same local network segment can send specially crafted SOAP XML requests, causing memory overflow and device crash, resulting in denial-of-service (DoS).

Weakness

The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.

Affected Software

NameVendorStart VersionEnd Version
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.3.3-build_230228 (including)1.3.3-build_230228 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.3.4-build_230424 (including)1.3.4-build_230424 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.3.5-build_230717 (including)1.3.5-build_230717 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.3.7-build_230920 (including)1.3.7-build_230920 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.3.9-build_231019 (including)1.3.9-build_231019 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.3.11-build_231115 (including)1.3.11-build_231115 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.3.13-build_240327 (including)1.3.13-build_240327 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.3.14-build_240513 (including)1.3.14-build_240513 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.3.15-build_240715 (including)1.3.15-build_240715 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.4.1-build_241212 (including)1.4.1-build_241212 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.4.2-build_250313 (including)1.4.2-build_250313 (including)
Tapo_c200_firmwareTp-link1.4.4-build_250922 (including)1.4.4-build_250922 (including)

Potential Mitigations

  • Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either:

  • The first of these solutions is an issue in itself though, since it may allow attackers to prevent the use of the system by a particular valid user. If the attacker impersonates the valid user, they may be able to prevent the user from accessing the server in question.

  • The second solution is simply difficult to effectively institute – and even when properly done, it does not provide a full solution. It simply makes the attack require more resources on the part of the attacker.

References