CVE-2025-8523VulnerabilityPublished 4 Aug 2025

CVE-2025-8523: RiderLike Fruit Crush-Brain App · Improper Export of Android Application Components

Affects RiderLike Fruit Crush-Brain 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: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 3% 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 4 Aug 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
RiderLike Fruit Crush-Brain App	Affected =1.0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

1. Organizations should audit mobile devices for the presence of the RiderLike Fruit Crush-Brain App version 1.0 and consider uninstalling or restricting its use until a patch is available. 2. Employ Mobile Device Management (MDM) solutions to enforce application whitelisting and restrict installation of untrusted or vulnerable apps. 3. Educate users about the risks of installing apps from untrusted sources and the importance of device hygiene to prevent local privilege escalation. 4. Monitor devices for suspicious local activity or unauthorized inter-app communication that could indicate exploitation attempts. 5. Encourage the vendor or community to develop and distribute a patched version that properly restricts component exports in the AndroidManifest.xml. 6. For developers or security teams, review AndroidManifest.xml files for all in-house or third-party apps to ensure components are not unnecessarily exported, applying the principle of least privilege. 7. Implement runtime application self-protection (RASP) or endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools on mobile devices to detect anomalous behavior related to component misuse.

Description

A vulnerability has been found in RiderLike Fruit Crush-Brain App 1.0 on Android and classified as problematic. Affected by this vulnerability is an unknown functionality of the file AndroidManifest.xml of the component com.fruitcrush.fun. 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 direct impact of this vulnerability depends on the prevalence of the RiderLike Fruit Crush-Brain App within their user base or employee devices. If widely used, this vulnerability could be exploited by malicious local apps or users to gain unauthorized access to app components, potentially leading to data leakage or unauthorized actions within the app environment. While the app itself may not handle sensitive corporate data, compromised devices could be leveraged as pivot points for broader attacks or to undermine device integrity. In environments with Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies, this vulnerability could increase the risk of lateral movement or data leakage if exploited. Additionally, if the app is used in any corporate or educational settings in Europe, the risk is elevated. The lack of vendor response and absence of patches increases exposure time. However, since exploitation requires local access and some privileges, remote exploitation risk is low, limiting the threat to scenarios where attackers already have some foothold on the device.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…