CVE-2025-20725
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 ims service, there is a possible out of bounds write due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to remote escalation of privilege, if a UE has connected to a rogue base station controlled by the attacker, with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: MOLY01671924; Issue ID: MSV-4620.
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 · high confidenceA missing bounds check in the IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) service allows an attacker controlling a rogue base station to trigger an out-of-bounds write, leading to remote privilege escalation on the affected User Equipment (UE). No user interaction is required.
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 dataall 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
- Network
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Identify the device chipset modelOn Android, go to Settings > About Phone > Chipset or Model info. On Linux/embedded devices, run: cat /proc/cpuinfo or check /sys/devices/soc0/soc_idAffected if The chipset is Mediatek Lr12a, Nr15, or Nr16
-
Confirm the specific Mediatek variantCheck the modem firmware version or baseband version: Android Settings > About Phone > Baseband version, or run: getprop gsm.version.basebandAffected if The baseband corresponds to Mediatek Lr12a, Nr15, or Nr16 variants (all versions are affected)
-
Determine if IMS service is activeOn Android, check running services: settings list global | grep ims, or check if com.android.ims service is running via: dumpsys activity services | grep -i imsAffected if The IMS service is enabled and running on the device, providing attack surface for the vulnerability
The device is affected if it uses a Mediatek Lr12a, Nr15, or Nr16 chipset (any version) with the IMS service enabled, as the missing bounds check in IMS can be exploited via a rogue base station without user interaction.
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 the vendor patch (MOLY01671924) through firmware update from the device/chip vendor. Mobile operators should ensure devices on their network have up-to-date firmware.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing16.0 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 $9,856.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-20725 — 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-2025-20725 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