CVE-2025-36929
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 AreFencesRegistered of gxp_fence_manager.cc, there is a possible information leak due to improper input validation. This could lead to local information disclosure 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 confidenceIn the AreFencesRegistered function within gxp_fence_manager.cc, improper input validation allows a local attacker to potentially read sensitive information without requiring any elevated privileges or user interaction. The vulnerability stems from insufficient validation of input parameters passed to this function, which could leak memory contents or other sensitive data to a local user.
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.
-
Identify the vulnerable fence manager componentCheck if the device contains the gxp_fence_manager component by searching for files or binaries with 'gxp_fence_manager' in the name or checking /system/lib64 or /vendor/lib64 directories for related libraries.Affected if The gxp_fence_manager component or related library exists on the device.
-
Check for fence-related system servicesExamine if the fence registration service is exposed by checking for relevant system services via 'dumpsys' commands, particularly looking for fence manager or synchronization fence-related services.Affected if A fence management service is running and accessible on the device.
-
Verify input handling in fence operationsMonitor or inspect logs (logcat) for any fence registration calls and check whether the AreFencesRegistered function accepts unvalidated input parameters by observing behavior or reviewing any accessible debug information.Affected if The AreFencesRegistered function can be invoked with arbitrary or unvalidated parameters.
-
Confirm lack of elevated privilege requirementVerify that the vulnerable code path does not require root or system-level privileges by testing fence information retrieval as a standard unprivileged application or examining the permission model around fence operations.Affected if The fence information can be accessed without elevated (root/system) privileges.
The user is affected if the gxp_fence_manager component exists on their Android device and the AreFencesRegistered function can be accessed without elevated privileges, allowing potential memory contents or sensitive data to be read through improper input validation.
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 dataImplement proper input validation and bounds checking in the AreFencesRegistered function to ensure all inputs are validated before processing. Consider adding length checks and sanitizing any pointers or array indices used within the function.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-36929 — 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-2025-36929 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