VulnerabilityPublished 7 Apr 2025Updated 17 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-20659: MediaTek MT2735, MT2737, MT6739, MT6761, MT6762, MT6762D, MT6762M, MT6763, MT6765, MT6765T, MT6767, MT6768, MT6769, MT6769K, MT6769S, MT6769T, MT6769Z, MT6771, MT6779, MT6781, MT6783, MT6785, MT6785T, MT6785U, MT6789, MT6813, MT6833, MT6833P, MT6835, MT6835T, MT6853, MT6853T, MT6855, MT6855T, MT6873, MT6875, MT6875T, MT6877, MT6877T, MT6877TT, MT6878, MT6878M, MT6879, MT6880, MT6883, MT6885, MT6886, MT6889, MT6890, MT6891, MT6893, MT6895, MT6895TT, MT6896, MT6897, MT6899, MT6980, MT6980D, MT6983, MT6983T, MT6985, MT6985T, MT6989, MT6989T, MT6990, MT6991, MT8666, MT8667, MT8673, MT8675, MT8676, MT8678, MT8765, MT8766, MT8768, MT8771, MT8781, MT8786, MT8788, MT8788E, MT8791T, MT8796, MT8797, MT8798, MT8863 · Out-of-bounds Read

Affects MediaTek MT2735, MT2737, MT6739, MT6761, MT6762, MT6762D, MT6762M, MT6763, MT6765, MT6765T, MT6767, MT6768, MT6769, MT6769K, MT6769S, MT6769T, MT6769Z, MT6771, MT6779, MT6781, MT6783, MT6785, MT6785T, MT6785U, MT6789, MT6813, MT6833, MT6833P, MT6835, MT6835T, MT6853, MT6853T, MT6855, MT6855T, MT6873, MT6875, MT6875T, MT6877, MT6877T, MT6877TT, MT6878, MT6878M, MT6879, MT6880, MT6883, MT6885, MT6886, MT6889, MT6890, MT6891, MT6893, MT6895, MT6895TT, MT6896, MT6897, MT6899, MT6980, MT6980D, MT6983, MT6983T, MT6985, MT6985T, MT6989, MT6989T, MT6990, MT6991, MT8666, MT8667, MT8673, MT8675, MT8676, MT8678, MT8765, MT8766, MT8768, MT8771, MT8781, MT8786, MT8788, MT8788E, MT8791T, MT8796, MT8797, MT8798, MT8863Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:29 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 28% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 7 Apr 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 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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

AI-suggested

Immediate deployment of the vendor-provided patch (MOLY01519028) across all affected devices and modems is critical. Coordinate with device manufacturers and mobile network operators to ensure timely updates.
Implement network-level detection and mitigation strategies to identify and block rogue base stations, including the use of radio frequency monitoring tools and anomaly detection systems.
Encourage users and administrators to update device firmware regularly and verify the authenticity of network connections.
For enterprise IoT deployments, segment networks to isolate vulnerable devices and limit exposure to untrusted wireless environments.
Collaborate with telecom providers to enhance base station authentication mechanisms and reduce the risk of rogue station exploitation.
Monitor network traffic for unusual patterns indicative of attempted exploitation or service disruption.
Educate security teams about this specific threat to improve incident response readiness.
Consider deploying endpoint detection solutions capable of identifying modem crashes or abnormal behavior related to this vulnerability.

Description

In Modem, there is a possible system crash due to improper input validation. This could lead to remote denial of service, if a UE has connected to a rogue base station controlled by the attacker, with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: MOLY01519028; Issue ID: MSV-2768.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-20659 is the potential for remote denial of service on devices using affected MediaTek modems. This can lead to temporary loss of connectivity in mobile phones, IoT devices, and embedded systems, disrupting business operations, especially in sectors dependent on continuous mobile communications such as logistics, healthcare, and critical infrastructure. Telecommunications providers may experience increased customer complaints and service degradation if rogue base stations are deployed by malicious actors. The vulnerability could be exploited in targeted attacks against high-value assets or to cause widespread disruption in areas with dense mobile device usage. Given the widespread adoption of MediaTek chipsets in budget and mid-range devices popular in Europe, the scope of affected endpoints is significant. However, the lack of confidentiality or integrity impact limits data breach risks. The ease of exploitation without user interaction increases the threat, especially in urban environments where rogue base stations can be covertly deployed.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

corp.mediatek.com/product-security-bulletin/April-2025 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 17 Feb 2026, 15:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats