CVE-2025-36899
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 · uneditedThere is a possible escalation of privilege due to test/debugging code left in a production build. This could lead to physical escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability exists because test or debugging code was inadvertently left in the production build. The debug code allows an attacker with physical access to escalate privileges without needing any additional execution privileges or user interaction, as the debug functionality provides elevated access or capabilities.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Check the Android build typeRun 'getprop ro.build.type' or check Settings > About Phone > Build Number. A 'userdebug' build contains debug features, while 'user' is the production build.Affected if The build type is 'userdebug' rather than 'user', indicating debug code is present in the build.
-
Verify USB debugging statusOn the device, go to Settings > Developer Options > USB Debugging. Also run 'getprop persist.sys.usb.config' via ADB or terminal.Affected if USB debugging is enabled, as this debug feature could be exploited for physical access privilege escalation.
-
Check if the build is debuggableRun 'getprop ro.debuggable' in a terminal or via ADB shell. Values of '1' indicate the system allows debugging and debug code is active.Affected if The ro.debuggable property returns '1', meaning debug functionality is accessible.
-
Examine the build fingerprint for debug indicatorsRun 'getprop ro.build.fingerprint' and look for keywords like 'eng', 'test', 'debug', or 'userdebug' in the string.Affected if The fingerprint contains 'eng', 'test', or 'userdebug', confirming this is not a production build.
-
Check for test keys in the firmwareRun 'getprop ro.build.tags' and verify if it shows 'test-keys' instead of 'release-keys', or inspect the /system/etc/security/otacert file.Affected if The build uses 'test-keys' or lacks proper release signing, indicating a development build.
A user is affected if their Android device runs a 'userdebug' or 'eng' build, has USB debugging enabled, returns '1' for ro.debuggable, or uses test keys, as any of these indicate debug code is present that could enable physical privilege escalation.
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 dataRemove all test/debugging code from production builds by implementing proper build configurations that exclude debug features, conducting code reviews to identify residual test code, and using release build profiles that strip all development-only functionality.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-36899 — 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-2025-36899 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