VulnerabilityPublished 2 Sep 2025Updated 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-32100: Out-of-bounds Read

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 13:47 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 12% 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:L/I:L/A:N

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

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: 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: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-32100, European organizations should: 1) Monitor Samsung and device manufacturers for official firmware or software updates addressing this vulnerability and apply patches promptly once available. 2) Employ network-level filtering to detect and block malformed ROHC packets where feasible, using advanced intrusion detection/prevention systems (IDS/IPS) capable of inspecting ROHC traffic. 3) For critical environments, consider segmenting networks to isolate vulnerable devices and limit exposure to untrusted networks. 4) Implement robust mobile device management (MDM) policies to ensure devices are updated and monitored for anomalous behavior. 5) Engage with vendors to confirm whether their devices incorporate the affected chipsets and request timelines for vulnerability remediation. 6) Educate security teams about this vulnerability to enhance detection capabilities and incident response readiness. 7) Where possible, disable or restrict ROHC packet processing on devices that do not require it, reducing the attack surface.

Description

An issue was discovered in Samsung Mobile Processor, Wearable Processor, and Modem Exynos 980, 990, 850, 1080, 2100, 1280, 2200, 1330, 1380, 1480, 2400, 1580, 9110, W920, W930, W1000, Modem 5123, Modem 5300, and Modem 5400. A programming mistake for buffer copy leads to out-of-bounds writes via malformed ROHC packets.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-32100 can be significant, especially for those relying on Samsung-based mobile devices, wearable technology, or network equipment using the affected Exynos processors and modems. Confidentiality and integrity of data transmitted or processed by these devices could be compromised, potentially exposing sensitive corporate or personal information. This could affect sectors such as telecommunications, healthcare (wearables), finance (mobile banking), and critical infrastructure relying on mobile connectivity. The vulnerability could be leveraged for targeted espionage, data theft, or to undermine trust in mobile communications. While availability is not directly impacted, the potential for memory corruption could lead to device instability or crashes, indirectly affecting business continuity. Given the widespread use of Samsung chipsets in consumer and enterprise devices, the scale of exposure in Europe is considerable. However, the absence of known exploits and the medium severity rating suggest that immediate widespread attacks are unlikely but should not be discounted as attackers may develop exploits over time.

CWE-125Out-of-bounds Read (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessCWE Top 25 (2025): #8
The product reads data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
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.
Architecture and Design · Language Selection
Use a language that provides appropriate memory abstractions.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Overread Buffers (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 9 Sep 2025, 21:45 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats