CVE-2025-20642
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 DA, there is a possible out of bounds write due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege, if an attacker has physical access to the device, with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS09291146; Issue ID: MSV-2057.
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 confidenceAn out-of-bounds write vulnerability exists in MediaTek's DA (Device Abstraction) component due to a missing bounds check. Successful exploitation requires physical access to the device and user interaction, allowing a local attacker to escalate privileges without needing additional execution privileges.
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= 12.0= 13.0= 14.0= 15.0CVSS 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
- Physical
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Check Android versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if Version is 12.0, 13.0, 14.0, or 15.0
-
Identify processor vendorGo to Settings > About Phone > Processor or Hardware info, or run 'getprop ro.hardware' or 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' via ADB shell to check for MediaTek chipsetAffected if Device uses a MediaTek processor (MTK, MediaTek, or MTxxxx naming in hardware info)
-
Confirm DA component presenceCheck for MediaTek DA (Device Abstraction) related kernel modules or firmware. Run 'ls /vendor/lib/modules/' or check /proc/mediatek/misdp for DA component references via ADB shellAffected if MediaTek DA component is present on the device (typically found in MediaTek-based Android devices)
-
Verify physical access requirementThis check confirms exploitation context: the vulnerability requires physical access to the device and user interaction to triggerAffected if Device is physically accessible to untrusted parties (e.g., shared access, unattended, or stolen devices)
Device is affected if it runs Android 12.0-15.0 on a MediaTek chipset with the vulnerable DA component present, especially in scenarios where physical access is possible.
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 dataApply vendor patch ALPS09291146 which adds the missing bounds check to prevent the out-of-bounds write condition.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20642 — 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-2025-20642 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