CVE-2025-20024
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedin OpenHarmony v5.0.2 and prior versions allow a local attacker arbitrary code execution in pre-installed apps through integer overflow. This vulnerability can be exploited only in restricted scenarios.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceInteger overflow vulnerability in OpenHarmony v5.0.2 and prior versions enables a local attacker to achieve arbitrary code execution within pre-installed applications. The flaw exists in how integer values are handled in the affected component, allowing potential memory corruption when malformed input triggers the overflow. Exploitation requires the attacker to have local access and meet specific preconditions.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data>= 4.1, <= 5.0.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Confirm OpenHarmony is installedCheck system information, boot logs, or package management for OpenHarmony components (for example, run 'grep -i openharmony /proc/version' or check system build files)Affected if OpenHarmony is detected on the system
-
Identify the OpenHarmony versionQuery the system for its OpenHarmony version (for example, check /etc/version, system settings, or use 'getprop' commands if available)Affected if The installed version is greater than or equal to 4.1 AND less than or equal to 5.0.2
-
Check for pre-installed applicationsList pre-installed applications on the system (check /system/app, /preinstall, or the applications registry for system-bundled apps)Affected if Pre-installed applications exist on the device
-
Assess local access vectorsReview user access controls, shell permissions, and debugging interfaces (check ADB status, USB debugging settings, and available local accounts)Affected if Local users have shell access or debugging interfaces are enabled
The system is affected if it runs OpenHarmony version 4.1 through 5.0.2 and has pre-installed applications that could be targeted through local access.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpdate to a patched version of OpenHarmony if available. Otherwise, restrict local access to devices, minimize privileges of pre-installed apps, and monitor for suspicious activity targeting these applications.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20024 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2025-20024 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data