CVE-2025-21047VulnerabilityPublished 10 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-21047: Samsung Mobile Devices · Improper Access Control

Affects Samsung Mobile DevicesSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.2 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.2Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 8% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Physical
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: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
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 10 Oct 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 2026-10-26.

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

1. Enforce strict physical security controls to prevent unauthorized access to devices, including secure storage and access policies for mobile devices. 2. Implement device management solutions that can remotely monitor, lock, or wipe devices suspected of compromise. 3. Educate employees on the risks of leaving devices unattended and the importance of reporting lost or stolen devices immediately. 4. Apply security updates and patches from Samsung as soon as they become available; monitor Samsung security advisories closely. 5. Use multi-factor authentication and encryption on devices to add layers of protection beyond KnoxGuard. 6. Limit the use of privileged APIs and restrict administrative access where possible through device management policies. 7. Conduct regular audits of device security configurations and access logs to detect suspicious activity. 8. Consider alternative secure device solutions or additional endpoint protection for high-risk users until patches are available.

Description

Improper access control in KnoxGuard prior to SMR Oct-2025 Release 1 allows physical attackers to use the privileged APIs.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk primarily to confidentiality due to unauthorized access to privileged APIs on Samsung devices. Organizations that use Samsung Mobile devices for handling sensitive corporate data, secure communications, or identity management could face data leakage risks if devices are physically compromised. The requirement for physical access limits remote exploitation but increases the threat in environments with less physical security, such as field operations, mobile workforces, or public-facing roles. The impact on integrity and availability is minimal, but the confidentiality breach could lead to secondary impacts such as intellectual property theft, exposure of personal data under GDPR, or compromise of authentication credentials. This could result in regulatory penalties and reputational damage. The lack of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the medium severity score and absence of patches necessitate proactive mitigation. Organizations with high Samsung device usage, especially in sectors like finance, government, and critical infrastructure, should prioritize addressing this vulnerability.

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=10 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Oct 2025, 06:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-284

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats