CVE-2025-7889VulnerabilityPublished 20 Jul 2025Updated 21 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-7889: CallApp Caller ID App · Improper Export of Android Application Components

Affects CallApp Caller ID AppSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

4.8Medium

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 19% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:L/VA:L/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Vulnerable system confidentiality: Low
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: Low
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable system 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 through terminal emulation (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., using social engineering techniques to trick a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: The attacker must take no measurable action to exploit the vulnerability. The attack requires no target-specific circumvention to exploit the vulnerability. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker requires privileges that provide basic capabilities that are typically limited to settings and resources owned by a single low-privileged user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges has the ability to access only non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without interaction from any human user, other than the attacker.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 Vulnerable System 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 Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 20 Jul 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
CallApp Caller ID App	Affected =2.0.0 =2.0.1 =2.0.2 =2.0.3 =2.0.4	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should include auditing and restricting the use of the CallApp Caller ID app on corporate devices, especially those handling sensitive information. 2. Where possible, replace the vulnerable app with alternative caller ID/blocking apps that are actively maintained and have a strong security track record. 3. Implement mobile device management (MDM) policies to control app installation and enforce security configurations, including restricting installation of apps with known vulnerabilities. 4. Educate users about the risks of local exploitation and the importance of device physical security to prevent unauthorized local access. 5. Monitor devices for unusual behavior that could indicate exploitation attempts, such as unexpected app interactions or changes in call blocking behavior. 6. Encourage the vendor to respond and release a patch; meanwhile, consider isolating devices with the vulnerable app from sensitive networks or data. 7. Regularly review AndroidManifest.xml exports in in-house or third-party apps to ensure no unnecessary components are exported, reducing attack surface.

Description

A vulnerability was found in CallApp Caller ID App up to 2.0.4 on Android. It has been classified as problematic. Affected is an unknown function of the file AndroidManifest.xml of the component caller.id.phone.number.block. The manipulation leads to improper export of android application components. It is possible to launch the attack on the local host. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used. The vendor was contacted early about this disclosure but did not respond in any way.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of this vulnerability depends largely on the prevalence of the CallApp Caller ID app among employees and the sensitivity of the data handled on affected devices. If employees use this app on corporate or personal devices that access corporate resources, attackers with local access (e.g., via physical access or malware on the device) could exploit the vulnerability to interfere with call blocking or glean information about incoming/outgoing calls. This could facilitate social engineering, targeted phishing, or unauthorized surveillance. While the vulnerability does not allow remote exploitation, it increases the attack surface for local adversaries, which is particularly concerning in environments with shared or less secure devices. Organizations in sectors with high privacy requirements (e.g., finance, healthcare, government) could face compliance risks if call data or user privacy is compromised. Additionally, the lack of vendor response and patch availability prolongs exposure and complicates risk management. Overall, the vulnerability could undermine device security hygiene and user privacy, indirectly impacting organizational security posture.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…