Critical Security Flaws in LabVIEW Pose Threats to Industrial & Critical Systems

For critical infrastructure operators, scientists, and engineers, National Instruments LabVIEW occupies a unique and essential place. This graphical programming environment is a workhorse across research laboratories, industrial automation, biomedical development, aerospace, and countless other fields. Its intuitive approach to data acquisition, instrument control, and hardware integration has contributed to its strong reputation. Yet, with widespread adoption across such sensitive domains comes growing scrutiny regarding security—scrutiny that, as recent findings reveal, is well-founded.

Fresh Security Vulnerabilities Uncovered in LabVIEW​

National Instruments (NI), now known as NI following its acquisition by Emerson, faces significant cybersecurity concerns with its flagship LabVIEW platform. Recent advisories issued by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have spotlighted two critical vulnerabilities affecting LabVIEW releases up to and including 2025 Q1. Both issues revolve around the improper restriction of operations within the bounds of a memory buffer—known in the cybersecurity world as CWE-119, a class of vulnerabilities that for decades has been among the most dangerous due to its potential to enable code execution and information disclosure.

Severity and CVSS Scores​

Each identified vulnerability, assigned CVE-2025-2633 and CVE-2025-2634 respectively, garners high base CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) scores:

• CVSS v4 Base Score: 7.1 (High)
• CVSS v3.1 Base Score: 7.8 (High)

Such scores indicate these vulnerabilities are serious, being both easily exploitable (low attack complexity) and potentially giving an attacker substantial control over an affected system. However, it's important to note that these issues are not remotely exploitable—successful attacks require local access. This means that while the “attack vector” is not as broad as a remotely exploitable bug, the impact remains severe, especially when considering LabVIEW’s typical deployment within critical infrastructure.

Vulnerability Details and Technical Analysis​

Nature of the Vulnerabilities​

Both CVE-2025-2633 and CVE-2025-2634 concern “improper restriction of operations within the bounds of a memory buffer.” At a high level, these flaws enable a local attacker to trigger invalid reads or writes in memory. The immediate risks include information disclosure (such as leaking sensitive data) and execution of arbitrary code—meaning a successful exploit could give an attacker full control over the LabVIEW process, and, by extension, the system on which it runs.
LabVIEW 2025 Q1 and all prior versions are affected by CVE-2025-2633, while LabVIEW 2024 Q3 and prior versions are susceptible to CVE-2025-2634. According to the CISA ICS advisory, both vulnerabilities were reported by security researcher Michael Heinzl, whose recent track record includes several high-impact findings within the industrial software landscape.

Attack Complexity and Exploit Scenarios​

The low attack complexity means that the vulnerabilities are not dependent on intricate exploit chains or unique system configurations; exploitation can be achieved by leveraging standard user permissions and generic means. Notably, no privileges are required (PR:N), and user interaction is either required (UI:R) or almost automatic (UI:A) depending on the context described in the CVSS vector strings.
Since exploitation is local-only, an attacker must have some form of access to the target system. This might sound limiting, but within networked environments—particularly in research, hospital, or industrial control settings—such access is not unheard of, especially if defense-in-depth strategies are poorly implemented or social engineering is used to gain a foothold.

Impact in Critical Sectors​

LabVIEW’s role in critical manufacturing, aerospace, and research makes the presence of such vulnerabilities particularly disconcerting. Systems running LabVIEW often connect to or control expensive, mission-critical instrumentation. An arbitrary code execution vulnerability on such systems could mean not just loss of data, but catastrophic operational disruptions.
Moreover, as LabVIEW is deployed worldwide and often used as part of larger SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) or PLC (Programmable Logic Controller) systems, the ripple effects of an exploit could extend far beyond the immediate target. According to CISA, LabVIEW is entrenched in “Critical Manufacturing” sectors, but real-world deployments span areas such as energy, transportation, and even public safety.

Mitigation Steps and Patch Availability​

After coordinated disclosure, National Instruments responded by issuing patches for the affected versions, specifically targeting CVE-2025-2633 and CVE-2025-2634. Links to these updates are available both through National Instruments’ security update page and the dedicated CVE advisories:

• CVE-2025-2633 Patch Details
• CVE-2025-2634 Patch Details

For security-conscious administrators and engineers, prompt application of these patches is non-negotiable. In environments where immediate patching is not feasible—perhaps due to stringent validation requirements—CISA and NI recommend several mitigation strategies:

• Minimize network exposure: Ensure control system devices are never directly accessible from the public internet.
• Network segmentation: Isolate control networks from wider business networks, placing sensitive devices behind well-configured firewalls.
• Secure remote access: Where remote access is unavoidable, use updated VPN technology, understanding that VPNs themselves require robust management and patching.
• User education: Mitigate phishing and social engineering attempts by training users and maintaining vigilance against unsolicited attachments and dubious web links.

CISA further recommends adherence to their control systems security best practices, including layered defense (defense-in-depth), rigorous impact analyses before the deployment of new countermeasures, and timely incident reporting to authorities.

Recommended Hardening and Best Practices​

Lab environments, especially those leveraging older equipment or “set-and-forget” installations, may be uniquely susceptible to unpatched vulnerabilities. CISA’s Improving Industrial Control Systems Cybersecurity with Defense-in-Depth Strategies outlines additional layers, including application whitelisting, strict privilege management, multi-factor authentication for remote access, and regular audits.

Critical Analysis: Notable Strengths and Lingering Risks​

Positive Aspects of NI’s Response​

• Rapid Patch Release: NI responded to responsible disclosure with timely updates for both vulnerabilities, demonstrating mature engagement with security researchers and regulatory agencies such as CISA.
• Transparency and Guidance: Detailed advisories and links to remediation steps offer administrators actionable intelligence, helping minimize attack windows.

Systemic Weaknesses​

• Prevalence of Legacy Systems: The real-world deployment lifetimes of LabVIEW (and associated instrumentation) often far exceed the standard software support lifecycles. This breeds environments where patches cannot always be applied quickly, leaving old systems perennially vulnerable.
• User-Dependent Security: By nature, graphical development environments such as LabVIEW appeal to users who may not be professional IT staff. As such, reliance on users to adopt best security practices can be risky, especially under organizational cultures that prioritize uptime and experimentation over comprehensive cyber hygiene.
• Potential Supply Chain Cascade: Many custom instruments, middleware, and industrial solutions are built atop LabVIEW. If vulnerabilities are left unremediated in these downstream products, even patched mainline LabVIEW installations will not fully mitigate exploit risks.

Broader Industry Context​

Buffer-related issues such as CWE-119 have caused catastrophic incidents in the past—including the antecedents of the infamous Stuxnet worm. ICS-CERT advisories throughout the past decade underscore the persistent threat surface in industrial automation software. While no public exploitation of the LabVIEW flaws has been documented as of this writing, and the vulnerabilities aren’t remotely exploitable, the incentives for advanced persistent threat (APT) actors to develop local exploitation chains in critical infrastructure remain high.
Additionally, the attack surface continues to expand as operational technology (OT) and IT networks converge, increasing the need for vendors like NI to adopt secure-by-design philosophies across all software development lifecycles.

The Role of User Vigilance: Social Engineering and Internal Threats​

CISA's advisory emphasizes the significant role social engineering plays in local exploit scenarios. Phishing, spear-phishing, and other deception tactics remain popular attack vectors for infiltrating critical networks. Organizations are urged to:

• Exercise caution with web links and attachments in unsolicited messages.
• Reference resources such as Recognizing and Avoiding Email Scams and Avoiding Social Engineering and Phishing Attacks.

These human factors, often under-appreciated next to hard technical controls, can make the difference between a blocked attack and a potentially catastrophic compromise.

Recommended Incident Response and Forward-Looking Preparations​

Organizations observing suspicious activity within their LabVIEW environments—or associated business and control networks—are reminded to rely on established, rehearsed incident response playbooks. CISA recommends that incidents be reported so they can be tracked and correlated, potentially unveiling larger concerted attack campaigns. Resources such as CISA’s ICS webpage and technical papers like ICS-TIP-12-146-01B on Targeted Cyber Intrusion Detection and Mitigation Strategies offer a wealth of actionable, field-tested advice.
Moreover, organizations should periodically test recovery procedures, ensure offline backups exist, and press vendors for timely, transparent security updates—not just for LabVIEW itself, but for all embedded components, plugins, and extensions.

Conclusion: Beating the Patch Race in Industrial Environments​

LabVIEW’s critical role across industrial research and manufacturing makes robust, responsive cybersecurity practices essential. Recent vulnerabilities underscore the point: even trusted, established tools are not immune to serious flaws.
While National Instruments has moved swiftly to issue patches and guidance, the onus remains on organizations to:

• Promptly apply available fixes.
• Harden networks and systems as aggressively as practical.
• Institute an organizational culture that prizes security as much as performance and uptime.

For LabVIEW administrators, engineers, and IT staff alike, these latest advisories are a timely reminder: In an interconnected era, security is not a peripheral concern, but a core requirement. Vigilance—both technical and human—remains the ultimate safeguard.
For a detailed breakdown of the advisories and patching instructions, consult the official National Instruments security advisory page and CISA’s industrial control system (ICS) portal.

---

Source: CISA National Instruments LabVIEW | CISA