CVE-2025-23102
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Samsung Mobile Processor Exynos 980, 990, 1080, 2100, 1280, 2200, 1380, 1480 and 2400. A Double Free in the mobile processor leads to privilege escalation.
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 double-free memory corruption vulnerability in Samsung Exynos mobile processors (models 980, 990, 1080, 2100, 1280, 2200, 1380, 1480, and 2400) allows an attacker to corrupt memory allocation metadata and achieve privilege escalation to elevated/system 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 dataall versionsall 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/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 device modelRun 'getprop ro.product.model' or check Settings > About Phone > Model NameAffected if Device is a Samsung mobile device
-
Identify chipset/processor modelRun 'getprop ro.hardware' or check /proc/cpuinfo, or use 'lshw' if available, or check Settings > About Phone > ChipsetAffected if Chipset matches Exynos 980, 990, 1080, 2100, 1280, 2200, 1380, 1480, or 2400
-
Check firmware versionRun 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' or check Settings > About Phone > Android security patch levelAffected if Any version is installed (all versions are affected)
-
Verify vulnerability trigger conditionConfirm the device uses the affected Exynos firmware for baseband/modem processing. Check 'getprop ro.baseband' for radio firmware version if accessible.Affected if Baseband firmware is from Samsung Exynos (not Qualcomm or other)
If the device uses any of the listed Exynos chipsets (980, 990, 1080, 2100, 1280, 2200, 1380, 1480, 2400), the device is affected regardless of firmware version.
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 Samsung firmware/security updates for affected devices; coordinate with Samsung for patch deployment across device ecosystem.
- Consultation8.0 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 $8,704.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23102 — 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-2025-23102 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