VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-21039: Samsung Mobile S Assistant · : Improper Verification of Intent by Broadcast Receiver

Affects Samsung Mobile S AssistantSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.1 Medium : upgrade to 9.3.2 when convenient.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.1Medium

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.
Patch: Available – fixed in 9.3.2

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

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

Upgrade Samsung Mobile S Assistant to 9.3.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Samsung Mobile S Assistant	Affected <9.3.2	Fixed in 9.3.2

AI-suggested

2) Restrict physical and local access to corporate mobile devices to prevent unauthorized local attackers from exploiting the flaw. 3) Implement Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions to monitor and control app versions and enforce timely updates. 4) Educate users about the risks of installing untrusted apps or granting unnecessary permissions that could facilitate local exploitation. 5) Monitor device logs for unusual broadcast intents or modifications to itinerary data that could indicate exploitation attempts. 6) Consider disabling or limiting the use of S Assistant in high-security environments until the vulnerability is patched. 7) Collaborate with Samsung support channels to receive timely security advisories and patches.

Description

Improper verification of intent by SystemExceptionalBroadcastReceiver in S Assistant prior to version 9.3.2 allows local attackers to modify itinerary information.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on the use of Samsung mobile devices with the S Assistant app in their environment. Since the vulnerability allows local attackers to alter itinerary information, it could lead to misinformation or disruption in scheduling, potentially affecting operational efficiency. In sectors where precise scheduling is critical—such as logistics, transportation, or event management—this could cause operational delays or miscoordination. Although the confidentiality of data is not directly impacted, the integrity and availability of itinerary information are compromised, which could indirectly affect decision-making processes. Additionally, if attackers manipulate itinerary data to cause confusion or missed appointments, it could lead to reputational damage or financial loss. The requirement for local access limits remote exploitation, but insider threats or compromised devices could still pose risks. Given the widespread use of Samsung devices in Europe, especially in corporate and government sectors, the vulnerability could have a moderate operational impact if left unmitigated.

CWE-925Improper Verification of Intent by Broadcast Receiver (opens in a new tab)
Variant weakness
The Android application uses a Broadcast Receiver that receives an Intent but does not properly verify that the Intent came from an authorized source.
Architecture and Design
Before acting on the Intent, check the Intent Action to make sure it matches the expected System action.
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.14.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.5.2 (opens in a new tab)
V14.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Android Intent Intercept (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

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

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Sep 2025, 06:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-925

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats