CVE-2025-20658
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 permission bypass due to a logic error. 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 not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS09474894; Issue ID: MSV-2597.
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 confidenceA logic error in the DA (Device Administration) component allows a permission bypass enabling local privilege escalation. An attacker with physical access to the device can elevate privileges without requiring additional execution privileges or user interaction.
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= 15.0all versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/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.
-
Check Android OS versionNavigate to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADBAffected if Version is 12.0, 13.0, 14.0, or 15.0
-
Identify Mediatek chipsetNavigate to Settings > About Phone > SOC info, or run 'getprop ro.mediatek.platform' via ADBAffected if Chipset is Mt2718, Mt6781, Mt6789, Mt6835, Mt6855, Mt6878, or Mt6879 regardless of Android version
-
Verify Device Administration component presenceCheck for Device Administration APIs or DA functionality in Settings > Security > Device Admin apps, or inspect /system/framework/framework-res.apk for DA-related componentsAffected if Device Administration feature is present and accessible on the device
Device is affected if running Android 12.0-15.0 or using any listed Mediatek chipset, and the Device Administration component exists on the device.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply vendor patch ALPS09474894. Physical access controls remain a defense-in-depth measure given the required physical access vector.
Android Security Patch Level incorporating MediaTek ALPS09474894 fix
- Contact MediaTek for the ALPS09474894 patch containing the fix for MSV-2597
- Apply the MediaTek firmware update containing the patch to the affected chipset (Mt2718, Mt6781, Mt6789, Mt6835, Mt6855, Mt6878, Mt6879)
- Ensure the device receives the corresponding Android security patch update that includes the MediaTek fix
- After patching, verify the DA (Downloaded Agent) component no longer allows permission bypass through physical access
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20658 — 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-2025-20658 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