CVE-2025-21082
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 v5.0.3 and prior versions allow a local attacker cause apps crash through type confusion.
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 confidenceOpenHarmony v5.0.3 and prior versions contain a type confusion vulnerability that allows a local attacker to cause applications to crash. Type confusion occurs when code treats an object of one type as a different type, leading to memory corruption and denial of service.
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<= 5.0.3CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 OpenHarmony versionUse the system version checking mechanism available on the device (such as 'getprop' command, system settings, or /proc/version file) to determine the installed OpenHarmony versionAffected if The reported version is 5.0.3 or any earlier version (e.g., 5.0.2, 5.0.1, 5.0.0, 4.x, etc.)
-
Confirm OpenHarmony distributionVerify that the target system runs OpenHarmony (Openatom Openharmony) and not another OS fork or derivativeAffected if The system is confirmed to be running OpenHarmony and the version check shows <= 5.0.3
-
Review application crash logsExamine system logs or crash reports for unexpected application terminations that may indicate exploitation of the type confusion vulnerabilityAffected if Application crashes are observed and the system version is <= 5.0.3, especially if crashes are repetitive or unexplained
A system is affected if it runs OpenHarmony version 5.0.3 or any prior version, as the type confusion vulnerability exists in those releases and can be triggered by a local attacker to cause denial of service.
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 for CVE-2025-21082 when available; until then, limit device access to trusted users and monitor for application crash reports indicating exploitation attempts.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $9,024.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-21082 — 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-2025-21082 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