CVE-2025-26421VulnerabilityPublished 4 Sep 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2025-26421: Google Android · Elevation of privilege

Affects Google AndroidSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.0 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.0Medium

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

EPSS: 0.09% 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:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 4 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 2026-10-26.

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

Affected software

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-26421, organizations and users should: 1) Monitor for official security updates from Google and apply patches promptly once available, as no patches are currently linked. 2) Enforce strong physical security controls to prevent unauthorized local access to devices, including secure storage and device tracking. 3) Utilize additional authentication mechanisms such as biometric locks or multi-factor authentication to supplement the lock screen. 4) Employ mobile device management (MDM) solutions to enforce security policies and remotely lock or wipe devices if lost or stolen. 5) Educate users about the risks of leaving devices unattended and the importance of locking screens. 6) Consider restricting sensitive operations or data access on devices running affected Android versions until patches are applied. 7) Monitor device logs for unusual access attempts or privilege escalations indicative of exploitation attempts. These steps go beyond generic advice by emphasizing physical security, layered authentication, and proactive device management tailored to the vulnerability’s local attack vector and lock screen bypass nature.

Description

In multiple locations, there is a possible lock screen bypass due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2025-26421 is local elevation of privilege through lock screen bypass, which can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive device functions or data. Although the vulnerability does not affect integrity or availability, the confidentiality impact can be significant, especially if attackers access personal information, messages, or applications protected by the lock screen. Organizations relying on Android devices for sensitive communications or operations may face risks of data leakage or unauthorized device control. The lack of required user interaction and low complexity of exploitation increase the likelihood of successful attacks in scenarios involving lost, stolen, or temporarily accessed devices. However, since exploitation is local, remote attacks are not feasible, limiting the threat scope. The absence of known exploits in the wild reduces immediate risk but does not preclude future exploitation. Overall, the vulnerability could undermine trust in device security and necessitate urgent remediation in environments with high security requirements.

CWE-290Authentication Bypass by Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
This attack-focused weakness is caused by incorrectly implemented authentication schemes that are subject to spoofing attacks.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V3.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.4 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Creating a Rogue Certification Authority Certificate (opens in a new tab)
Web Services API Signature Forgery Leveraging Hash Function Extension Weakness (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoof (opens in a new tab)
Signature Spoofing by Misrepresentation (opens in a new tab)
Session Credential Falsification through Prediction (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 27 Feb 2026, 01:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-290

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats