CVE-2025-32899VulnerabilityPublished 5 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-32899: KDE KDEConnect · Improper Preservation of Consistency Between Independent Representations of Shared State

Affects KDE KDEConnectSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.3 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 7% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Adjacent: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack, but the attack is limited at the protocol level to a logically adjacent topology. This can mean an attack must be launched from the same shared physical (e.g., Bluetooth or IEEE 802.11) or logical (e.g., local IP subnet) network, or from within a secure or otherwise limited administrative domain (e.g., MPLS, secure VPN to an administrative network zone).
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: 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 5 Dec 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 2026-10-25.

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
KDE KDEConnect	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

European organizations should monitor KDEConnect updates and apply version 1.33.0 or later as soon as it becomes available to remediate this vulnerability. In the interim, network administrators can reduce risk by restricting broadcast UDP traffic within local networks, especially on segments where KDEConnect devices operate. Implementing network segmentation and applying strict firewall rules to limit unnecessary UDP broadcasts can reduce exposure. Users should be educated to avoid connecting to untrusted or public Wi-Fi networks without VPN protection, as local network attackers could exploit this flaw. Additionally, organizations can consider disabling KDEConnect on Android devices if its functionality is non-essential or if alternative secure solutions exist. Monitoring network traffic for anomalous broadcast UDP packets targeting KDEConnect devices may help detect exploitation attempts. Finally, maintaining an inventory of devices running KDEConnect and their versions will aid in timely patch management and risk assessment.

Description

In KDE Connect before 1.33.0 on Android, a packet can be crafted that causes two paired devices to unpair. Specifically, it is an invalid discovery packet sent over broadcast UDP.

Impact

For European organizations, the primary impact of CVE-2025-32899 is the disruption of device pairing between Android devices and desktops using KDEConnect. This can lead to temporary loss of functionality such as file transfers, notifications, and remote input features that KDEConnect provides. Organizations relying on KDEConnect for productivity or operational workflows may experience interruptions, potentially affecting user efficiency. While the vulnerability does not expose sensitive data or allow code execution, the denial of service on device pairing could be exploited in environments where network access is shared or untrusted, such as public or enterprise Wi-Fi networks. This may be particularly relevant for organizations with remote or hybrid work models where device integration is critical. The lack of authentication or user interaction requirements increases the risk of opportunistic attacks within local networks. However, the absence of known exploits in the wild and the medium severity rating suggest the threat is moderate but should not be ignored.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 12 Dec 2025, 06:05 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-1250

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats