CVE-2025-56139VulnerabilityPublished 3 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-56139: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 5.3 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

5.3Medium

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

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 25% 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:N/I:N/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
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: 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: 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 3 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 2026-10-26.

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

To mitigate this vulnerability, European organizations should implement a multi-layered approach: 1) Educate users about the risk of clicking links on LinkedIn posts and comments, especially when the preview metadata appears inconsistent or suspicious. Training should emphasize verifying URLs independently rather than relying solely on visual previews. 2) Encourage the use of URL scanning and web filtering solutions that can detect and block access to known malicious domains or suspicious URLs, regardless of the link preview. 3) Monitor LinkedIn activity for unusual posting patterns or suspicious links that could indicate exploitation attempts. 4) Advocate for LinkedIn to release an urgent patch or update that correctly refreshes link preview metadata when URLs are edited before publishing. 5) Until a patch is available, consider limiting LinkedIn mobile app usage on corporate devices or enforcing policies that restrict posting or clicking on links from untrusted sources. 6) Employ endpoint protection solutions capable of detecting phishing and malware payloads that may result from exploitation of this vulnerability. These steps go beyond generic advice by focusing on user awareness, technical controls specific to URL validation, and organizational policy adjustments tailored to the LinkedIn platform's usage context.

Description

LinkedIn Mobile Application for Android version 4.1.1087.2 fails to update link preview metadata (image, title, description) when a user replaces the original URL in a post or comment before publishing. As a result, the stale preview remains visible while the clickable link points to a different URL, which can be malicious. This UI misrepresentation enables attackers to deceive users by displaying trusted previews for harmful links, facilitating phishing attacks and user confusion.

Impact

For European organizations, this vulnerability poses a significant risk primarily through social engineering and phishing campaigns leveraging LinkedIn's professional network. Since LinkedIn is widely used across Europe for professional networking, recruitment, and business communications, attackers exploiting this flaw could deceive employees, partners, or clients into visiting malicious websites under the guise of trusted content previews. This can lead to credential theft, malware infections, or unauthorized access to corporate resources if users are tricked into divulging sensitive information or downloading malicious payloads. The UI misrepresentation undermines user trust in LinkedIn posts and comments, potentially impacting the platform's reliability as a communication channel. While the vulnerability itself does not directly compromise device confidentiality or integrity, the downstream effects of successful phishing attacks can be severe, including data breaches, financial fraud, and reputational damage. The medium severity rating reflects the indirect but impactful nature of this threat vector.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 10 Sep 2025, 20:33 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-449

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats