CVE-2025-20807
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 dpe, there is a possible out of bounds write due to an integer overflow. This could lead to local escalation of privilege if a malicious actor has already obtained the System privilege. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS10114841; Issue ID: MSV-4451.
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 privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the dpe component where an integer overflow in bounds checking allows an attacker with System-level privileges to write beyond buffer boundaries. This enables local privilege escalation to higher privileges (likely root) without any 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= 16.0CVSS 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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.
-
Verify Android version is 16.0Check the device settings under Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if Android version equals 16.0
-
Confirm dpe component is presentCheck if the dpe service exists by running 'ls -la /system/bin/dpe' or 'service list' via ADB shell to list running servicesAffected if The dpe binary or service exists on the device
-
Check current privilege levelRun 'whoami' or 'id' via ADB shell to determine if the current user has System-level privilegesAffected if Current user or process holds System-level (not root) privileges
-
Verify dpe service is runningRun 'ps -A | grep dpe' or check via 'dumpsys' to see if the dpe service is actively runningAffected if The dpe service is actively running on the device
If the device runs Android 16.0 with the dpe component present and running, and the attacker already has System-level privileges, the integer overflow in dpe bounds checking can be exploited for local privilege escalation.
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 ALPS10114841 to address the integer overflow vulnerability in the dpe component. If patches are unavailable, consider disabling or restricting the dpe service if possible.
- Contact your device manufacturer to obtain a system update that includes MediaTek patch ALPS10114841
- Verify that the DPE (Data Processing Element) component has been updated as part of the system image
- Since this vulnerability requires System privilege already, ensure proper access controls and privilege separation are maintained on affected devices
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2025-20807 — 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-2025-20807 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