CVE-2025-31710VulnerabilityPublished 3 Jun 2025

CVE-2025-31710: Unisoc (Shanghai) Technologies SC9863A/T606/T612/T616/T750/T765/T760/T770/T820/S8000/T8300/T9300 · Command Injection

Affects Unisoc (Shanghai) Technologies SC9863A/T606/T612/T616/T750/T765/T760/T770/T820/S8000/T8300/T9300Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.9 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 08:30 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.9Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 30% 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:L/A:L

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

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: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on 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 3 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 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. Immediate mitigation should focus on restricting physical and local access to devices containing the affected Unisoc chipsets, as exploitation requires local access. 2. Organizations should inventory and identify devices using the affected chipsets and Android versions 13 through 15 to assess exposure. 3. Employ mobile device management (MDM) solutions to enforce strict security policies, including disabling or restricting access to engineer mode or diagnostic services where possible. 4. Monitor device behavior for unusual command execution or privilege escalation attempts, using endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools tailored for mobile devices. 5. Educate users about the risks of unauthorized physical access and the importance of device security, including locking devices and avoiding installation of untrusted applications that could facilitate local exploitation. 6. Coordinate with device manufacturers and Unisoc for timely patch releases and apply updates as soon as they become available. 7. For critical environments, consider deploying additional endpoint protection layers that can detect and block command injection attempts or anomalous service behavior. 8. Implement network segmentation and limit the exposure of vulnerable devices to sensitive corporate networks to reduce the impact of potential compromise.

Description

In engineermode service, there is a possible command injection due to improper input validation. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-31710 depends largely on the deployment of devices containing the affected Unisoc chipsets. These chipsets are often found in budget and mid-range Android smartphones and IoT devices. Organizations using such devices for corporate communications, mobile workforce operations, or embedded systems could face risks of local privilege escalation, potentially leading to unauthorized access to corporate data or disruption of mobile device operations. Although exploitation requires local access, this could be achieved through physical device access or via malware that gains initial foothold on the device. The vulnerability could also be leveraged in targeted attacks against employees or contractors using vulnerable devices. In sectors such as finance, healthcare, and critical infrastructure—where mobile device security is paramount—this vulnerability could undermine device integrity and confidentiality. Furthermore, the absence of patches increases the window of exposure. The potential for integrity and availability impacts, even if rated low, could disrupt business continuity or lead to data leakage. Given the widespread use of Android devices in Europe, the vulnerability poses a tangible risk, especially in environments where device security hygiene is less stringent or where devices are shared or less physically secured.

CWE-77Improper Neutralization of Special Elements used in a Command ('Command Injection') (opens in a new tab)
Class weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #23OWASP Top 10 A05:2025: Injection (opens in a new tab)
The product constructs all or part of a command using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the intended command when it is sent to a downstream component.
Architecture and Design
If at all possible, use library calls rather than external processes to recreate the desired functionality.
Implementation
If possible, ensure that all external commands called from the program are statically created.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Abuse Case (opens in a new tab)
Deserialization (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
SQL Injection Prevention (opens in a new tab)
Injection Prevention in Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V1.5.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
LDAP Injection (opens in a new tab)
Command Delimiters (opens in a new tab)
IMAP/SMTP Command Injection (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Terminal Devices (opens in a new tab)
Exploiting Multiple Input Interpretation Layers (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

unisoc.com/en_us/secy/announcementDetail/1929773763314909186 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Jul 2025, 06:46 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-77

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats