CVE-2025-12435VulnerabilityPublished 10 Nov 2025

CVE-2025-12435: Google Chrome · Incorrect security UI

Affects Google ChromeSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.4 Medium : upgrade to 142.0.7444.59 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.4Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 17% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 142.0.7444.59

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
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 10 Nov 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

Upgrade Google Chrome to 142.0.7444.59.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Google Chrome	Affected =142.0.7444.59 <142.0.7444.59	Fixed in 142.0.7444.59

AI-suggested

European organizations should prioritize updating Google Chrome on all Android devices to version 142.0.7444.59 or later as soon as the patch is available. Mobile device management (MDM) solutions should enforce this update policy to ensure compliance across the enterprise. Security awareness training should emphasize the risks of UI spoofing and phishing, instructing users to verify URLs carefully and avoid interacting with suspicious links. Implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) can reduce the impact of credential theft resulting from phishing. Network-level protections such as DNS filtering and web proxy solutions can help block access to known malicious sites. Organizations should monitor for phishing campaigns exploiting this vulnerability and employ endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools to identify suspicious activity on mobile devices. Where possible, restricting the use of third-party or untrusted applications that can open web content may reduce exposure. Finally, coordinating with cybersecurity information sharing groups in Europe can provide timely intelligence on emerging exploits related to this vulnerability.

Description

Incorrect security UI in Omnibox in Google Chrome on Android prior to 142.0.7444.59 allowed a remote attacker to perform UI spoofing via a crafted HTML page. (Chromium security severity: Medium)

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily through social engineering and phishing attacks targeting mobile users. Given the widespread adoption of Android devices and Google Chrome as a default browser in Europe, especially among employees accessing corporate resources remotely, the UI spoofing flaw could be exploited to harvest credentials, deliver malware, or gain unauthorized access to sensitive systems. Financial institutions, government agencies, and enterprises with mobile-dependent workforces are particularly vulnerable to the reputational and operational impacts of successful phishing campaigns enabled by this vulnerability. The potential compromise of user credentials or session tokens could lead to broader network intrusions or data breaches. Additionally, the trust erosion in mobile browsing security could affect user behavior and corporate security postures. Although the vulnerability does not directly compromise system integrity or availability, the indirect effects through successful phishing attacks could be severe. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers often develop exploits following public disclosure.

CWE-451User Interface (UI) Misrepresentation of Critical Information (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The user interface (UI) does not properly represent critical information to the user, allowing the information - or its source - to be obscured or spoofed. This is often a component in phishing attacks.
Implementation · Input Validation
Perform data validation (e.g. syntax, length, etc.) before interpreting the data.
Architecture and Design · Output Encoding
Create a strategy for presenting information, and plan for how to display unusual characters.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Spear Phishing (opens in a new tab)
Mobile Phishing (opens in a new tab)
Phishing (opens in a new tab)
Resource Location Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Action Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-285Improper Authorization (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not perform or incorrectly performs an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that you perform access control checks related to your business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that you apply to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Zone Scripting (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Subverting Environment Variable Values (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (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 10 Nov 2025, 20:38 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-451, CWE-285

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats