VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-36912: Google Android · Denial of Service

Affects Google AndroidSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 22% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
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: 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: 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 11 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 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

European organizations should prioritize monitoring for updates from Google and Android device manufacturers to apply patches promptly once released. Until patches are available, network-level mitigations such as filtering or rate-limiting suspicious cellular traffic targeting modem components could reduce exposure. Deploying mobile device management (MDM) solutions to enforce security policies and monitor device health can help detect anomalies indicative of exploitation attempts. Organizations should conduct risk assessments to identify critical Android devices in their environment and consider temporary operational adjustments to reduce reliance on vulnerable devices. Collaboration with mobile network operators to share threat intelligence and coordinate defensive measures is advisable. Security teams should educate users about the risk, even though user interaction is not required, to maintain vigilance for unusual device behavior. Incident response plans should be updated to address potential mass device outages. Finally, organizations should evaluate alternative communication channels to maintain business continuity during potential disruptions.

Description

In cellular modem, there is a possible denial of service due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to remote denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a risk of widespread disruption to mobile device availability and cellular communications. Organizations relying on Android devices for critical business functions, including field operations, communications, and mobile workforce management, could experience service interruptions. The denial of service could lead to loss of connectivity, impacting emergency services, logistics, and remote work capabilities. Additionally, sectors such as finance, healthcare, and government agencies that depend on secure and reliable mobile communications may face operational degradation. The lack of required user interaction or privileges means attackers could potentially target devices en masse, increasing the scale of impact. Disruptions could also affect IoT devices and embedded systems running Android kernels with cellular modems, expanding the threat beyond traditional smartphones. The potential for cascading effects on network infrastructure and service providers exists if large numbers of devices are affected simultaneously. Overall, the vulnerability threatens confidentiality indirectly by disrupting availability and potentially integrity if devices reboot unexpectedly during critical operations.

References

source.android.com/security/bulletin/pixel/2025-12-01 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 11 Dec 2025, 20:16 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats