CVE-2025-23107
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 1480 and 2400. The lack of a length check leads to out-of-bounds writes.
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 missing length validation in Samsung Exynos 1480 and 2400 mobile processors allows an attacker to trigger out-of-bounds memory writes, potentially leading to code execution or 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 dataall 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/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.
-
Identify the processor model in your deviceCheck device specifications in Settings > About Phone > CPU info, or run 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' or 'dmesg | grep -i exynos' via ADB shell to identify the chipAffected if The device is found to contain an Exynos 1480 or Exynos 2400 processor
-
Locate firmware or baseband versionAccess Settings > About Phone > Baseband version, or use 'getprop ro.build.version.baseband' or 'getprop gsm.version.baseband' via ADB shellAffected if Firmware/baseband version is returned for an Exynos 1480 or 2400 device (note: all versions of these chips are affected per vendor advisory)
-
Confirm processor architecture exposureVerify the device runs a firmware stack that exposes the affected subsystem - this is inherent to Exynos 1480 and 2400 firmware as the flaw exists in the baseband/processor firmware layerAffected if Device utilizes the Exynos 1480 or 2400 SoC firmware stack, as the missing length validation exists at the processor firmware level
A device is affected if it contains a Samsung Exynos 1480 or Exynos 2400 processor, as all firmware versions of these chips contain the missing length validation flaw in the processor firmware.
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 vendor-supplied firmware/security updates from Samsung for affected Exynos 1480 and 2400 processors once available; prioritize mobile devices using these chips.
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation20.0 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 $15,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-23107 — 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-2025-23107 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