CVE-2025-36921VulnerabilityPublished 11 Dec 2025

CVE-2025-36921: Google Android · Information disclosure

Affects Google AndroidSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.5 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.5Medium

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

EPSS: 0.07% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 0% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

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

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

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: 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: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within 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 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 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

AI-suggested

Mitigation should focus on multiple layers: 1) Promptly applying security patches from Google and device manufacturers once available to address the missing bounds check in the Android kernel. 2) Strengthening baseband firmware security by employing secure boot, firmware integrity verification, and restricting unauthorized firmware modifications to prevent initial compromise. 3) Implementing robust endpoint security solutions on Android devices that can detect anomalous behavior indicative of baseband compromise or kernel exploitation attempts. 4) Network-level protections such as monitoring for unusual cellular traffic patterns that may indicate baseband attacks. 5) For organizations, enforcing strict device management policies including regular updates, device attestation, and restricting use of devices with outdated firmware. 6) Collaborating with mobile network operators to ensure baseband firmware updates are distributed securely and timely. 7) Conducting regular security audits and penetration testing focused on mobile device and baseband security. These steps go beyond generic advice by emphasizing firmware integrity and coordinated patch management across the device ecosystem.

Description

In ProtocolPsUnthrottleApn() of protocolpsadapter.cpp, there is a possible out of bounds read due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local information disclosure with baseband firmware compromise required. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-36921 could be significant, particularly for those relying heavily on Android devices for secure communications, mobile workforce, or critical infrastructure management. The vulnerability could lead to unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information stored or processed on Android devices, undermining confidentiality and potentially enabling further attacks. Organizations in sectors such as finance, government, telecommunications, and defense are especially at risk due to the sensitive nature of their data and operations. The requirement for baseband firmware compromise raises the attack complexity but also indicates a high-value target scenario, as attackers capable of such compromise are likely advanced threat actors. The absence of user interaction lowers the barrier for exploitation once baseband control is achieved. This vulnerability could also affect mobile network operators and device manufacturers in Europe, who must ensure firmware integrity and timely patching to prevent exploitation. Overall, the threat could erode trust in Android devices and impact compliance with data protection regulations like GDPR if sensitive data is leaked.

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

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, 20:14 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-125

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats