CVE-2025-48522
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 setDisplayName of AssociationRequest.java, there is a possible way for an app to retain CDM association due to a logic error in the code. 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 confidenceThis is a logic error vulnerability in Android's AssociationRequest.java within the setDisplayName method. The flaw allows a malicious app to improperly retain a CDM (Content Decryption Module) association beyond its intended lifecycle, enabling local privilege escalation without requiring additional execution privileges or user interaction.
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 data= 13.0= 14.0= 15.0= 16.0CVSS 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.
-
Check Android OS versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if The version is 13.0, 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0 exactly (note: version ranges appear to be exact matches based on '=' notation)
-
Check security patch levelGo to Settings > About Phone > Security patch level, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' via ADB shellAffected if The security patch level is earlier than the May 2025 Android security bulletin (the patch for this CVE was released in May 2025)
-
Verify CDM/DRM usage contextCheck if any apps using Content Decryption Modules are installed or in use. Examine app permissions related to DRM ( Widevine, MediaDRM). On a rooted device, check /data/data/com.android.providers.media/ for CDM-related data.Affected if Content Decryption Module associations can be created by apps with DRM/media permissions, and the flaw allows improper retention of these associations beyond their lifecycle
You are affected if your device runs Android 13.0, 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0 AND has a security patch level before May 2025 AND uses any CDM-based media/DRM functionality that could create associations.
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 the vendor-provided Android security patch that corrects the logic error in AssociationRequest.java's setDisplayName method to properly revoke CDM associations when they should be terminated.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-48522 — 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-2025-48522 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