CVE-2025-0087VulnerabilityPublished 4 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-0087: Google Android · Elevation of privilege

Affects Google AndroidSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.1Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Google Android	Affected =15 =14 =13	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should implement the following specific mitigations: 1) Enforce strict device access controls to limit local user access, including strong lock screen policies and user authentication. 2) Restrict installation of untrusted or unnecessary apps that could exploit this vulnerability. 3) Monitor device logs for unusual app uninstallations or activity related to UninstallerActivity. 4) Deploy Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions that can detect and prevent unauthorized app removals and enforce app whitelisting. 5) Educate users about the risks of installing apps from unknown sources and the importance of device security hygiene. 6) Stay alert for official patches or updates from Google and apply them promptly once available. 7) For shared devices, consider isolating user profiles or limiting app management capabilities to trusted administrators only. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on controlling local access and monitoring app uninstall behaviors specific to this vulnerability.

Description

In onCreate of UninstallerActivity.java, there is a possible way to uninstall a different user's app due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability could pose risks primarily on shared or multi-user Android devices, such as those used in enterprise mobility, kiosks, or shared work environments. Unauthorized uninstallation of critical business or security apps could lead to operational disruptions, loss of security controls, or exposure to further attacks if protective apps are removed. Although the confidentiality impact is limited, availability impact could affect business continuity, especially in sectors relying on mobile device management (MDM) solutions or secure app ecosystems. The lack of required user interaction increases the risk of stealthy exploitation by malicious insiders or compromised apps. Organizations with Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies or shared device usage should be particularly cautious. However, the vulnerability does not allow remote exploitation, limiting its impact to local attackers with device access.

CWE-689Permission Race Condition During Resource Copy (opens in a new tab)
Compound weakness
The product, while copying or cloning a resource, does not set the resource's permissions or access control until the copy is complete, leaving the resource exposed to other spheres while the copy is taking place.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.11.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Leveraging Race Conditions via Symbolic Links (opens in a new tab)
Leveraging Race Conditions (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Sep 2025, 20:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-689

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats