VulnerabilityPublished 30 Aug 2025Updated 2 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-9695: GalleryVault Gallery Vault App · Improper Export of Android Application Components

Affects GalleryVault Gallery Vault AppSource CVE Database V5

Public exploit available · CVSS 4.8 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 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 12% 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 30 Aug 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

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 or the CVSS exploit maturity 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
GalleryVault Gallery Vault App	Affected =4.5.0 =4.5.1 =4.5.2	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2025-9695, European organizations should take several specific steps beyond generic advice: 1) Immediately audit the use of Gallery Vault App on corporate or personal devices used for work purposes and assess the necessity of the app in the environment. 2) Restrict physical and local access to devices, enforcing strong device lock mechanisms such as biometric authentication or strong PINs to prevent unauthorized local access. 3) Monitor for updates from the GalleryVault vendor and apply patches promptly once available. 4) If possible, configure Android application permissions and component exports manually by inspecting the AndroidManifest.xml or using mobile device management (MDM) solutions to restrict exported components. 5) Educate users about the risks of installing apps from untrusted sources and the importance of device security to prevent local exploitation. 6) Consider alternative secure vault applications with better security track records if the Gallery Vault App is critical but unpatched. 7) Implement endpoint detection and response (EDR) tools capable of detecting suspicious local activity on mobile devices to identify potential exploitation attempts early.

Description

A vulnerability was identified in GalleryVault Gallery Vault App up to 4.5.2 on Android. Affected by this issue is some unknown functionality of the file AndroidManifest.xml of the component com.thinkyeah.galleryvault. The manipulation leads to improper export of android application components. The attack can only be performed from a local environment. The exploit is publicly available and might be used.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2025-9695 is primarily relevant to those using the Gallery Vault App on Android devices, particularly if the app is employed to secure sensitive images or documents. The improper export of app components could lead to unauthorized local access to protected data or app functionalities, potentially compromising confidentiality and integrity of sensitive information. Organizations relying on mobile device security for compliance with data protection regulations such as GDPR may face increased risk if sensitive personal data is exposed through this vulnerability. While the attack requires local access, insider threats or scenarios involving lost or stolen devices could be exploited. The vulnerability could also be leveraged as a foothold for further local privilege escalation or lateral movement within a compromised device. However, the limited scope and local attack vector reduce the likelihood of widespread remote exploitation, making the threat more relevant in environments with less stringent physical device controls or where devices are shared among multiple users.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…