VulnerabilityPublished 2 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-22431: Google Android · Denial of Service

Affects Google AndroidSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 12:55 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.08% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
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: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 2 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Google Android	Affected =15 =14 =13	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should implement a multi-layered approach: 1) Enforce strict application vetting policies by restricting app installations to trusted sources such as the official Google Play Store and employing Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions to control app permissions and installations. 2) Monitor device behavior for anomalies related to emergency call functionality and implement alerts for failed emergency call attempts. 3) Educate users about the risks of installing untrusted applications and the importance of promptly rebooting devices if emergency call issues are suspected. 4) Coordinate with device vendors and Google to prioritize patch deployment once available, and ensure timely updates of Android devices across the organization. 5) For critical roles, consider deploying secondary communication devices or alternative emergency communication methods as a contingency. 6) Conduct regular security audits and penetration testing focused on mobile device security to detect potential exploitation attempts. These measures go beyond generic advice by focusing on operational controls, user awareness, and proactive monitoring tailored to the specific nature of this vulnerability.

Description

In multiple locations, there is a possible method for a malicious app to prevent dialing emergency services under limited circumstances due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local denial of service until the phone reboots with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a notable risk primarily to employees and users who rely on Android devices for emergency communications. The inability to dial emergency services could have serious safety implications, especially for critical infrastructure personnel, healthcare workers, and field employees operating in hazardous environments. Organizations that provide mobile devices to their workforce may face liability and reputational damage if employees are unable to access emergency services during incidents. Furthermore, sectors such as public safety, transportation, and utilities that depend on reliable mobile communication could experience operational disruptions. Although the vulnerability does not allow data theft or system takeover, the denial of emergency calls could indirectly affect organizational resilience and employee safety. Given the medium CVSS score of 5.5 and the ease of exploitation without user interaction, attackers could deploy malicious apps via social engineering or compromised app stores to target specific organizations or regions. The impact is compounded in scenarios where device rebooting is delayed or impractical, prolonging the denial of service condition.

CWE-693Protection Mechanism Failure (opens in a new tab)
Pillar weaknessOWASP Top 10 A06:2025: Insecure Design (opens in a new tab)
The product does not use or incorrectly uses a protection mechanism that provides sufficient defense against directed attacks against the product.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Secure Design Principles (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Accessing Functionality Not Properly Constrained by ACLs (opens in a new tab)
Cross Site Tracing (opens in a new tab)
Directory Indexing (opens in a new tab)
Using Malicious Files (opens in a new tab)
Encryption Brute Forcing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Sep 2025, 04:50 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-693

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats