CVE-2025-26782VulnerabilityPublished 20 Oct 2025Updated 21 Oct 2025

CVE-2025-26782: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

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

EPSS: 0.5% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 48% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
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: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
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: 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 20 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

Mitigation of CVE-2025-26782 requires coordinated action between device manufacturers, network operators, and end-users. Samsung should prioritize development and distribution of firmware or software patches addressing the RLC AM PDU handling flaw. European organizations should monitor official Samsung security advisories and apply updates promptly once available. Network operators can implement anomaly detection systems to identify unusual RLC traffic patterns indicative of exploitation attempts, enabling early warning and response. Deploying radio access network (RAN) security enhancements, such as filtering malformed PDUs at the network edge, can reduce exposure. Enterprises should inventory Samsung-based devices in their environment to assess exposure and plan for patch deployment. For critical systems, consider temporary network segmentation or limiting device access until patches are applied. Security teams should update incident response playbooks to include detection and mitigation steps for RLC-layer DoS attacks. Collaboration with telecom providers to share threat intelligence and coordinate defenses will enhance resilience. Finally, educating users about potential device instability and encouraging prompt updates will support mitigation efforts.

Description

An issue was discovered in L2 in Samsung Mobile Processor, Wearable Processor, and Modem Exynos 980, 990, 850, 1080, 2100, 1280, 2200, 1330, 1380, 1480, 9110, W920, W930, Modem 5123, and Modem 5300. Incorrect handling of RLC AM PDUs leads to a Denial of Service.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-26782 is the potential disruption of mobile and wearable device connectivity due to Denial of Service conditions. Telecommunications providers, enterprises with mobile workforce dependencies, and sectors relying on IoT wearables (such as healthcare and manufacturing) could experience operational interruptions. Disrupted device availability may affect critical communications, data access, and real-time monitoring systems. The vulnerability could also degrade network performance if exploited at scale, impacting service quality for end-users. Given the widespread use of Samsung devices in Europe, including smartphones and modems, the risk extends to both consumer and enterprise environments. Organizations involved in mobile network infrastructure or providing managed services may face increased support burdens and reputational risks if devices become unstable or unresponsive. While no data confidentiality or integrity compromise is indicated, the availability impact alone can have significant business consequences, particularly in sectors requiring continuous connectivity. The lack of known exploits currently limits immediate risk, but the potential for future weaponization necessitates proactive mitigation.

CWE-400Uncontrolled Resource Consumption (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: High
The product does not properly control the allocation and maintenance of a limited resource.
MITRE discourages mapping vulnerabilities to this broad entry; the root cause is usually a more specific weakness.
Architecture and Design
Design throttling mechanisms into the system architecture. The best protection is to limit the amount of resources that an unauthorized user can cause to be expended. A strong authentication and access control model will help prevent such attacks from occurring in the first place.
Architecture and Design
Mitigation of resource exhaustion attacks requires that the target system either: recognizes the attack and denies that user further access for a given amount of time, or; uniformly throttles all requests in order to make it more difficult to consume resources more quickly than they can again be freed.
Architecture and Design
Ensure that protocols have specific limits of scale placed on them.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
File Upload (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V12.1.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
XML Ping of the Death (opens in a new tab)
Regular Expression Exponential Blowup (opens in a new tab)
Sustained Client Engagement (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

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 20 Oct 2025, 15:49 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-400

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats