VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-21031: Samsung Mobile Devices · Improper Access Control

Affects Samsung Mobile DevicesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 10:12 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% 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:H/I:N/A:L

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

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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
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 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 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

To mitigate CVE-2025-21031, European organizations should prioritize the following measures: 1) Deploy the latest Samsung SMR updates as soon as they become available, specifically the September 2025 Release 1 or later, which addresses this vulnerability. 2) Enforce strict device access controls, including strong authentication mechanisms (PIN, biometrics) to prevent unauthorized local access to devices. 3) Implement Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions to monitor device compliance, enforce security policies, and remotely wipe or lock lost or stolen devices. 4) Educate users on the risks of physical device compromise and encourage secure handling of devices. 5) Restrict installation of untrusted applications that could gain local execution privileges and attempt to exploit the vulnerability. 6) Monitor device logs and network traffic for unusual IMS-related API calls or behaviors that could indicate exploitation attempts. 7) For high-security environments, consider additional endpoint protection solutions that detect privilege escalation or unauthorized API usage on mobile devices. These targeted actions go beyond generic advice by focusing on patching, access control, user education, and proactive monitoring tailored to the nature of this vulnerability.

Description

Improper access control in ImsService prior to SMR Sep-2025 Release 1 allows local attackers to use the privileged APIs.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-21031 can be significant, especially for enterprises relying on Samsung mobile devices for communication and business operations. Unauthorized access to privileged IMS APIs could expose sensitive telephony data, including call and messaging metadata or IMS configuration details, potentially leading to privacy violations or targeted espionage. This is particularly critical for sectors such as finance, government, healthcare, and critical infrastructure, where confidentiality of communications is paramount. Additionally, attackers could leverage this vulnerability to gather intelligence or prepare for further attacks by accessing privileged services without detection. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect integrity or availability, the confidentiality breach alone can undermine trust in mobile communications and lead to regulatory compliance issues under GDPR and other data protection laws prevalent in Europe. The local attack vector means the attacker needs physical or local access to the device, which limits remote exploitation but does not eliminate risk in scenarios involving insider threats, lost/stolen devices, or malware that gains local execution capabilities.

CWE-284Improper Access Control (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #19OWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not restrict or incorrectly restricts access to a resource from an unauthorized actor.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design · Operation
Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
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.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
Third Party Javascript Management (opens in a new tab)
Virtual Patching (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.4.4 (opens in a new tab)
V1.4.5 (opens in a new tab)
V1.10.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Embedding Scripts within Scripts (opens in a new tab)
Modification of Windows Service Configuration (opens in a new tab)
Malicious Root Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Intent Spoof (opens in a new tab)
WebView Exposure (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, 06:35 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats