CVE-2025-27701
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 the function process_crypto_cmd, the values of ptrs[i] can be potentially equal to NULL which is valid value after calling slice_map_array(). Later this values will be derefenced without prior NULL check, which can lead to local Temporary DoS or OOB Read, leading to information disclosure.
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 · high confidenceIn the process_crypto_cmd function, values from ptrs[i] obtained via slice_map_array() can legitimately be NULL. These NULL values are subsequently dereferenced without validation, causing a NULL pointer dereference that can result in local temporary denial of service or out-of-bounds read leading to information disclosure.
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 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Confirm the device runs Google AndroidCheck /system/build.prop for ro.build.fingerprint or run 'getprop ro.product.model' to verify the device is a Google Android deviceAffected if The device is not running Google Android (e.g., is a custom ROM, AOSP build, or different OS)
-
Identify the Android security patch levelRun 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' to check the installed security patch dateAffected if The security patch level is earlier than the fix date for CVE-2025-27701 (vulnerability exists in all versions prior to mitigation)
-
Check for the presence of crypto kernel moduleExamine /proc/kallsyms or kernel symbols for process_crypto_cmd function presence: 'grep process_crypto_cmd /proc/kallsyms' (requires root)Affected if The process_crypto_cmd function symbol exists in the kernel, indicating the vulnerable code path is present
-
Verify slice_map_array usage in crypto subsystemCheck kernel or vendor module for slice_map_array() calls within crypto processing code pathsAffected if The slice_map_array() function is called from process_crypto_cmd or related crypto handlers without NULL validation
-
Confirm crypto subsystem is enabledCheck if crypto or keymaster HAL is actively used: examine /vendor/etc/init.android.hardware.crypto*.rc or check crypto daemon is runningAffected if The Android crypto subsystem (keymaster, gatekeeper) is enabled and processing crypto commands
A Google Android device with the process_crypto_cmd function present in the kernel and crypto subsystem enabled is likely affected; the vulnerability exists in all Android versions prior to explicit NULL check fixes in process_crypto_cmd.
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 dataAdd explicit NULL checks before dereferencing ptrs[i] in process_crypto_cmd, or modify slice_map_array() to guarantee non-NULL return values.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,648.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-27701 — 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-2025-27701 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