CVE-2025-26780
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 L2 in Samsung Mobile Processor and Modem Exynos 2400 and Modem 5400. The lack of a length check leads to a Denial of Service via a malformed PDCP packet.
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 check vulnerability exists in the L2 layer of Samsung Exynos 2400 and Modem 5400 mobile processors. Attackers can exploit this by sending malformed PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol) packets, causing a denial of service condition.
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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 the mobile processor modelCheck device specifications or system information to determine if the device uses Samsung Exynos 2400 or Modem 5400. On Android devices, this may be visible in 'About Phone' or through kernel dmesg logs showing the baseband/modem chip.Affected if The device contains Exynos 2400 or Modem 5400 processors
-
Check baseband/modem firmware versionRetrieve the modem or baseband firmware version through device engineering menus, *#*#4636*#*#*, or via AT commands (e.g., AT+CGMR) if accessible. Compare against Samsung's published firmware releases.Affected if Any version is installed since all versions of Exynos 2400 and Modem 5400 firmware are affected
-
Verify PDCP layer exposureConfirm the device is operating on cellular networks that utilize PDCP (Packet Data Convergence Protocol). This is standard for LTE/5G connections. Check if the device has active cellular data connectivity.Affected if Device has active LTE or 5G cellular connectivity, exposing the PDCP layer to potential malformed packets
-
Monitor for PDCP anomaliesUse network debugging tools or mobile packet capture applications to inspect incoming PDCP packets for malformed headers, unexpected lengths, or protocol inconsistencies that could indicate exploitation attempts.Affected if Malformed PDCP packets are detected or the device experiences unexplained radio/connectivity failures consistent with PDCP handling issues
A device is affected if it contains Samsung Exynos 2400 or Modem 5400 processors with any firmware version, as all versions lack the required length validation in PDCP packet handling.
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/microcode updates from Samsung for affected Exynos 2400 and Modem 5400 processors to remediate the missing length validation in PDCP packet handling.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 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 $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-26780 — 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-2025-26780 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