CVE-2025-48567
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 multiple locations, there is a possible bypass of a file path filter designed to prevent access to sensitive directories due to incorrect unicode normalization. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is 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 path traversal vulnerability where file path filters designed to block access to sensitive directories can be bypassed due to incorrect unicode normalization. An attacker can use specially crafted unicode characters in file paths to bypass security checks and access protected directories, leading to local privilege escalation. User interaction is required for exploitation.
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= 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 Version is exactly 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0
-
Identify file path handling codeSearch application source code for file operations (open, read, write, list) that accept user-controlled paths, particularly in components that enforce directory restrictionsAffected if Code contains security checks that filter file paths to prevent access to sensitive directories
-
Locate path security validation logicReview code that implements directory allowlists or blocklists, look for comparisons using path strings without prior normalizationAffected if Security filters exist that compare paths without applying unicode normalization first
-
Test unicode normalization presenceInspect whether path validation functions call normalization APIs (java.text.Normalizer, android.icu.text.Normalizer, or equivalent) before performing security checksAffected if Path security validation does NOT normalize input paths to NFC or NFD form before comparison
-
Verify affected component contextDetermine if the application processes file paths from external sources (content URIs, network input, file pickers) that could contain unicode charactersAffected if Application accepts file paths from untrusted sources without ensuring normalized form
-
Check for privilege-sensitivityIdentify whether the file access functionality runs with elevated privileges or can access protected system directoriesAffected if Code with path restrictions runs with permissions that could enable privilege escalation if bypassed
A user is affected if their Android device runs version 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0 AND contains code that performs security checks on file paths without applying unicode normalization (NFC or NFD) to the input before 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.
dbcve · scopedImplement proper unicode normalization (e.g., NFC or NFD) on all user-supplied file paths before performing security validation checks, and ensure this normalization is applied consistently across all file path handling locations.
Android 16.0 with May 2025 Security Patch Level or later; Android 15.0 with May 2025 Security Patch Level or later; Android 14.0 with May 2025 Security Patch Level or later
- Check the current Android security patch level on the device by going to Settings > About Phone > Security Patch Level
- Verify if the device has received the May 2025 Android Security Bulletin or later security update
- If not updated, check for system updates in Settings > System > Software Update
- Apply the latest available system update which should include the fix for CVE-2025-48567
- After updating, verify the Security Patch Level reflects May 2025 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $8,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-48567 — 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-2025-48567 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