CVE-2025-36935
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 trusty_ffa_mem_reclaim of shared-mem-smcall.c, there is a possible memory corruption due to uninitialized data. This could lead to local 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 confidenceIn the Trusty TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) FFA (FF-A) memory reclaim handler (trusty_ffa_mem_reclaim) in shared-mem-smcall.c, uninitialized data structures are accessed during the memory reclamation process, leading to memory corruption. This allows a local attacker to escalate privileges to the Trusty TEE level without requiring user interaction or additional execution privileges.
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
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Confirm Trusty TEE is in useCheck if the device uses Trusty TEE by examining /proc/tee or checking for trusty-related kernel config options (CONFIG_TRUSTY) in /boot/config-$(uname -r) or through vendor-specific interfaces like /vendor/firmware/ or /dev/trusty*Affected if The device runs Trusty TEE as its Trusted Execution Environment
-
Identify Trusty TEE versionRetrieve the Trusty TEE version from /sys/firmware/efi/efivars or vendor-specific paths such as /vendor/firmware/ or through trustyInfo API if available; compare against any known patched versions from the vendorAffected if Any version is installed since the advisory states all versions are affected
-
Check FF-A (FF-A) support statusVerify if FF-A (FFR - FF-A Rentention) is enabled on the device by checking kernel command line parameters, device tree (if accessible), or Trusty configuration files in /vendor/firmware/ or /system/etc/Affected if FF-A/FFR support is enabled as the vulnerability resides in the trusty_ffa_mem_reclaim handler
-
Verify memory reclaim handler presenceInspect the trusty_ffa_mem_reclaim function in the Trusty TEE binary or source if accessible; confirm the shared-mem-smcall.c component is present in the buildAffected if The FF-A memory reclaim handler (trusty_ffa_mem_reclaim) exists in the deployed Trusty TEE image
If the device runs any version of Google Android with Trusty TEE and has FF-A/FFR support enabled, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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/patch updates for the Trusty TEE component. This requires coordination with the SoC/firmware vendor as Trusty is part of the secure boot chain and cannot be patched through standard OS updates.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-36935 — 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-2025-36935 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