CVE-2025-21026VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-21026: Samsung Mobile Devices · Improper handling of insufficient permission

Affects Samsung Mobile DevicesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.0 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% 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:N

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

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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 3 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 2026-10-25.

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

To mitigate CVE-2025-21026, European organizations should prioritize the following actions: 1) Ensure all Samsung mobile devices are updated with the latest SMR September 2025 Release 1 or subsequent patches once available, as these will address the permission handling flaw in ImsService. 2) Implement strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized local access to mobile devices, including device lock policies, biometric authentication, and secure storage. 3) Employ Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions to enforce security policies, monitor device integrity, and remotely lock or wipe devices if lost or stolen. 4) Educate users on the risks of leaving devices unattended and the importance of reporting lost or stolen devices promptly. 5) For high-security environments, consider restricting the use of affected Samsung devices or isolating sensitive communications to devices with verified security patches. 6) Monitor telephony service logs for unusual call interruptions that may indicate exploitation attempts. These targeted measures go beyond generic patching advice by focusing on access control, user awareness, and proactive monitoring tailored to the vulnerability's characteristics.

Description

Improper handling of insufficient permission in ImsService prior to SMR Sep-2025 Release 1 allows local attackers to interrupt the call.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-21026 is moderate but non-trivial. Many enterprises rely on Samsung mobile devices for communication, including voice calls over IMS networks. An attacker with local access to a device could disrupt calls, potentially affecting critical communications in sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government. Although the vulnerability does not allow data exfiltration or device takeover, call interruptions could lead to operational inefficiencies, missed critical alerts, or degraded trust in mobile communication security. In environments where secure and reliable voice communication is essential, such as emergency services or corporate communications, this vulnerability could be exploited to cause denial of service at the call level. However, since exploitation requires local access and no remote attack vector is present, the overall risk to large-scale operations is limited unless devices are physically compromised.

CWE-280Improper Handling of Insufficient Permissions or Privileges (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A10:2025: Mishandling of Exceptional Conditions (opens in a new tab)
The product does not handle or incorrectly handles when it has insufficient privileges to access resources or functionality as specified by their permissions. This may cause it to follow unexpected code paths that may leave the product in an invalid state.
Architecture and Design · Separation of Privilege
Compartmentalize the system to have "safe" areas where trust boundaries can be unambiguously drawn. Do not allow sensitive data to go outside of the trust boundary and always be careful when interfacing with a compartment outside of the safe area.
Implementation
Always check to see if you have successfully accessed a resource or system functionality, and use proper error handling if it is unsuccessful. Do this even when you are operating in a highly privileged mode, because errors or environmental conditions might still cause a failure.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Logging (opens in a new tab)
Error Handling (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

security.samsungmobile.com/securityUpdate.smsb?year=2025&month=09 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Sep 2025, 06:36 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-280

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats