VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-21040: 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, 17:16 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

Until then, organizations should enforce strict physical security controls over mobile devices to prevent unauthorized local access. Device management policies should include disabling or restricting the use of broadcast intents from untrusted sources where possible, and monitoring for unusual app behavior or unexpected itinerary changes. Employ Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions to enforce app updates and restrict installation of unauthorized apps that could facilitate local attacks. Educate users about the risks of leaving devices unattended and the importance of locking devices promptly. Additionally, organizations should audit and limit permissions granted to S Assistant and related apps, reducing the attack surface. Monitoring logs for anomalies related to itinerary modifications can help detect exploitation attempts early.

Description

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

Impact

For European organizations, especially those with employees using Samsung mobile devices with S Assistant, this vulnerability poses a risk to the integrity and availability of itinerary and scheduling data. While the confidentiality of data is not compromised, unauthorized modification of itinerary information can disrupt business operations, cause missed meetings or deadlines, and potentially lead to cascading operational inefficiencies. Organizations relying on mobile assistants for scheduling or logistics could see reduced trust in device security and increased risk of social engineering or operational disruption. The local attack vector means that the attacker must have physical or local access to the device, limiting remote exploitation risk but increasing concern in environments with shared or less controlled device access, such as field operations or shared workspaces. The absence of user interaction requirement means the attack can be automated once local access is achieved, increasing the threat in scenarios where devices are left unattended.

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