VulnerabilityPublished 8 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-26693: OpenHarmony · Improper Preservation of Permissions

Affects OpenHarmonySource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 3.3 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

3.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 2% 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:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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 8 Jun 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
OpenHarmony OpenHarmony	Affected =5.0.1	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-26693 effectively, European organizations should: 1) Identify and inventory all devices running OpenHarmony, especially version 5.0.3 and earlier, focusing on version 5.0.1. 2) Restrict local access to these devices by enforcing strong physical security controls and network segmentation to limit exposure to untrusted users. 3) Monitor and audit permission-related API calls and access logs on OpenHarmony devices to detect unusual permission queries or information access patterns. 4) Engage with OpenHarmony vendor or community channels to obtain patches or updates addressing this vulnerability as soon as they become available, and prioritize timely deployment. 5) Implement strict access control policies and consider additional endpoint protection solutions on devices where feasible. 6) Educate staff about the risks of local access and the importance of securing IoT devices physically and logically. 7) For critical environments, consider compensating controls such as device hardening, disabling unnecessary services, or isolating vulnerable devices from sensitive networks until patched.

Description

in OpenHarmony v5.0.3 and prior versions allow a local attacker cause information leak through get permission.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-26693 is relatively limited but should not be dismissed. Since the vulnerability requires local access, it primarily threatens environments where attackers can gain physical or local network access to devices running OpenHarmony. European enterprises deploying IoT devices, smart home systems, or industrial control systems based on OpenHarmony could face risks of sensitive information leakage, which may include configuration details, user permissions, or other data that could facilitate further exploitation or lateral movement within networks. Although the direct confidentiality impact is low, the leak could assist attackers in reconnaissance or privilege escalation attempts. In sectors such as manufacturing, healthcare, or critical infrastructure where IoT devices are increasingly integrated, even low-severity leaks can contribute to broader security incidents. Additionally, privacy regulations like GDPR impose strict requirements on protecting personal data, so any leakage—even limited—could have compliance implications. The absence of known exploits and the low CVSS score suggest this is not an immediate high-risk threat but warrants attention in security assessments and patch management strategies.

CWE-281Improper Preservation of Permissions (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The product does not preserve permissions or incorrectly preserves permissions when copying, restoring, or sharing objects, which can cause them to have less restrictive permissions than intended.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V8.3.8 (opens in a new tab)
V13.4.2 (opens in a new tab)
V7.2.2 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

gitee.com/openharmony/security/blob/master/zh/security-disclosure/2025/2025-06.md (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 9 Jul 2025, 00:41 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-281

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats