CVE-2025-8257VulnerabilityPublished 28 Jul 2025

CVE-2025-8257: Lobby App · Improper Export of Android Application Components

Affects Lobby AppSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 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 14% 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 28 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 2026-10-25.

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
Lobby Universe Lobby App	Affected =2.0 =2.1 =2.2 =2.3 =2.4 =2.5 =2.6 =2.7 =2.8.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Immediate mitigation should focus on restricting physical and local access to devices running the Lobby Universe Lobby App, ensuring that only trusted users can interact with the device. 2. Organizations should audit installed applications on corporate devices to identify the presence of the vulnerable Lobby App versions and restrict or remove it if not essential. 3. If removal is not feasible, consider using Android's app permission management or enterprise mobility management (EMM) tools to limit the app's capabilities and prevent it from running in sensitive contexts. 4. Monitor for updates from the vendor and apply patches as soon as they become available to fix the improper export configuration in AndroidManifest.xml. 5. Educate users about the risks of installing untrusted apps and the importance of device security hygiene, especially in environments where devices are shared or physically accessible by multiple users. 6. Consider implementing application whitelisting and integrity monitoring on mobile devices to detect unauthorized changes or exploitation attempts related to this vulnerability.

Description

A vulnerability classified as problematic was found in Lobby Universe Lobby App up to 2.8.0 on Android. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file AndroidManifest.xml of the component com.maverick.lobby. The manipulation leads to improper export of android application components. The attack needs to be approached locally. The exploit has been disclosed to the public and may be used.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact depends largely on the presence and use of the Lobby Universe Lobby App within their environment. If used internally or by employees, this vulnerability could allow a local attacker (e.g., an insider threat or someone with temporary device access) to exploit the app to gain unauthorized access to app components, potentially leading to data leakage or manipulation of app functionality. Although the severity is medium and the attack requires local access, in environments with shared devices or weak physical security controls, this could pose a risk to confidentiality and integrity of data processed by the app. For organizations relying on mobile device management (MDM) or BYOD policies, this vulnerability highlights the need to control app installations and monitor device security. The lack of remote exploitability reduces the risk of widespread attacks, but targeted attacks against high-value individuals or devices remain a concern. Overall, the threat is moderate but should be addressed to prevent potential lateral movement or privilege escalation within mobile environments.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…