CVE-2025-21034VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-21034: Samsung Mobile Devices · Out-of-bounds Write

Affects Samsung Mobile DevicesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.0 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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 3% 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:N/I:L/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
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: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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

Given the local attack vector, organizations should implement strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized access to Samsung mobile devices. This includes enforcing device lock policies with strong authentication mechanisms (PIN, biometric), enabling full-disk encryption, and ensuring devices are not left unattended in unsecured locations. IT departments should monitor for unusual device behavior indicative of exploitation attempts. Additionally, restricting installation of untrusted applications and limiting local user privileges can reduce the risk of exploitation. For enterprise environments, Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions should be used to enforce security policies, remotely wipe compromised devices, and control device configurations. User awareness training about the risks of physical device access and the importance of reporting lost or stolen devices is also critical.

Description

Out-of-bounds write in libsavsvc.so prior to SMR Sep-2025 Release 1 allows local attackers to potentially execute arbitrary code.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-21034 is moderate but should not be underestimated. Samsung mobile devices are widely used across Europe, both in consumer and enterprise environments. The local attack vector means that an attacker would need physical or local access to the device, which limits remote exploitation risks but raises concerns in scenarios where devices are shared, lost, or accessed by unauthorized personnel. Potential arbitrary code execution could lead to unauthorized modification of device data or installation of persistent malware, compromising device integrity and potentially enabling lateral movement within corporate networks if the device is connected to enterprise systems. Although confidentiality and availability impacts are not directly indicated, the integrity compromise could facilitate further attacks or data manipulation. This vulnerability is particularly relevant for organizations with Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies or those that rely heavily on Samsung mobile devices for secure communications and operations. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not eliminate the threat, especially as attackers may develop exploits post-disclosure.

CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
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

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, 06:34 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats