VulnerabilityPublished 2 Jun 2025Updated 17 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-20678: MediaTek 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, MT6983, MT6983T, MT6985, MT6985T, MT6989, MT6989T, MT6990, MT6991, MT8666, MT8667, MT8673, MT8675, MT8676, MT8678, MT8765, MT8766, MT8766R, MT8768, MT8771, MT8781, MT8786, MT8788, MT8788E, MT8789, MT8791, MT8791T, MT8795T, MT8797, MT8798, MT8863, MT8873, MT8883, MT8893 · Uncontrolled Recursion

Affects MediaTek 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, MT6983, MT6983T, MT6985, MT6985T, MT6989, MT6989T, MT6990, MT6991, MT8666, MT8667, MT8673, MT8675, MT8676, MT8678, MT8765, MT8766, MT8766R, MT8768, MT8771, MT8781, MT8786, MT8788, MT8788E, MT8789, MT8791, MT8791T, MT8795T, MT8797, MT8798, MT8863, MT8873, MT8883, MT8893Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 09:15 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 30% 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 2 Jun 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 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

1. Immediate deployment of the official patch MOLY01394606 from MediaTek or device manufacturers incorporating this fix is critical. 2. Network operators should monitor for and mitigate rogue base stations using IMSI catchers or similar detection technologies to reduce exposure to attack vectors. 3. Enterprises should inventory devices to identify those with affected MediaTek chipsets and firmware versions and prioritize updates or device replacements. 4. Implement network-level anomaly detection to identify unusual IMS service disruptions or signaling patterns indicative of exploitation attempts. 5. Encourage users to avoid connecting to untrusted or unknown cellular networks, especially in sensitive or high-risk locations. 6. Collaborate with mobile network providers to ensure rapid dissemination of patches and security advisories. 7. For critical infrastructure, consider deploying multi-factor communication channels to maintain operational continuity if mobile services are disrupted. 8. Regularly update device firmware and baseband software as part of a comprehensive mobile device management strategy.

Description

In ims service, there is a possible system crash due to incorrect error handling. 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: MOLY01394606; Issue ID: MSV-2739.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-20678 is the potential for remote denial of service on devices using affected MediaTek chipsets. This can disrupt mobile communications, including voice, SMS, and data services reliant on IMS, impacting both consumer and enterprise users. Telecommunications providers, emergency services, and critical infrastructure operators using devices with these chipsets could experience service outages or degraded network reliability. The vulnerability could be exploited by attackers deploying rogue base stations, which may be feasible in urban or high-value target areas. Disruption of mobile services can affect business continuity, emergency response, and operational communications. Additionally, enterprises with BYOD policies or mobile workforce relying on vulnerable devices may face increased risk of communication downtime. The lack of required user interaction or privileges lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing the threat level in environments where rogue base stations can be deployed or encountered. However, the impact is limited to availability, with no direct compromise of data confidentiality or integrity.

CWE-674Uncontrolled Recursion (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product does not properly control the amount of recursion that takes place, consuming excessive resources, such as allocated memory or the program stack.
Implementation
Ensure that an end condition will be reached under all logic conditions. The end condition may include checking against the depth of recursion and exiting with an error if the recursion goes too deep. The complexity of the end condition contributes to the effectiveness of this action.
Implementation
Increase the stack size.
Attack patterns
Serialized Data with Nested Payloads (opens in a new tab)
Oversized Serialized Data Payloads (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Feb 2026, 08:51 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-674

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats