CVE-2025-20756VulnerabilityPublished 2 Dec 2025Updated 17 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-20756: MediaTek MT2735, MT6833, MT6833P, MT6853, MT6853T, MT6855, MT6855T, MT6873, MT6875, MT6875T, MT6877, MT6877T, MT6877TT, MT6880, MT6883, MT6885, MT6889, MT6890, MT6891, MT6893, MT8673, MT8675, MT8676, MT8678, MT8755, MT8771, MT8791, MT8791T, MT8792, MT8793, MT8795T, MT8797, MT8798, MT8863, MT8873, MT8883, MT8893 · Specified Type

Affects MediaTek MT2735, MT6833, MT6833P, MT6853, MT6853T, MT6855, MT6855T, MT6873, MT6875, MT6875T, MT6877, MT6877T, MT6877TT, MT6880, MT6883, MT6885, MT6889, MT6890, MT6891, MT6893, MT8673, MT8675, MT8676, MT8678, MT8755, MT8771, MT8791, MT8791T, MT8792, MT8793, 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, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% 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 Dec 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

AI-suggested

1. Apply the official patch (MOLY01673749) from MediaTek or device manufacturers as soon as it becomes available to ensure the logic error causing the crash is resolved. 2. Implement network monitoring solutions capable of detecting rogue base stations or unusual radio frequency activity, especially in sensitive or high-risk environments. 3. Employ UE-side security features that can validate base station authenticity, such as enhanced base station authentication protocols or SIM-based protections. 4. Educate users and administrators about the risks of connecting to unknown or suspicious cellular networks, particularly in public or untrusted locations. 5. For enterprise and telecom operators, conduct regular security assessments of cellular infrastructure and consider deploying intrusion detection systems specialized for mobile network threats. 6. Collaborate with mobile network providers to share threat intelligence regarding rogue base station activity. 7. Maintain an inventory of devices using affected MediaTek chipsets to prioritize patch deployment and risk management. 8. Consider network segmentation and fallback communication methods to maintain critical operations during potential DoS events.

Description

In Modem, there is a possible system crash due to a logic error. 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: MOLY01673749; Issue ID: MSV-4643.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-20756 is the potential for remote denial of service on devices using affected MediaTek modems. This can disrupt critical communications, particularly for industries relying on mobile connectivity such as telecommunications providers, emergency services, transportation, and IoT deployments. The vulnerability could be exploited by attackers deploying rogue base stations in proximity to target devices, causing repeated modem crashes and service outages. This may lead to operational downtime, loss of communication capabilities, and potential safety risks in critical infrastructure. While confidentiality and integrity are not directly impacted, availability degradation can have cascading effects on business continuity and user trust. Organizations with employees or assets in public or unsecured environments are at higher risk. Additionally, telecom operators using affected hardware in their network infrastructure may experience service instability. The lack of required user interaction or privileges lowers the barrier for exploitation, increasing the threat surface. However, the need for physical proximity to the victim device limits the attack scope somewhat.

CWE-1287Improper Validation of Specified Type of Input (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product receives input that is expected to be of a certain type, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input is actually of the expected type.
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.
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)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 18 Feb 2026, 08:54 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1287

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats