CVE-2025-48611
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 DeviceId of DeviceId.java, there is a possible desync in persistence due to a missing bounds check. 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 confidenceA missing bounds check in the DeviceId persistence logic in DeviceId.java allows an attacker to cause desynchronization of stored device identifiers. This can be exploited locally to escalate privileges, likely through manipulation of array indices or buffer access beyond allocated boundaries in the persistence layer.
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.
-
Identify Android version and buildRun 'getprop ro.build.version.release' and 'getprop ro.build.version.sdk' to determine the Android version and SDK levelAffected if The device runs any version of Android (as all versions are affected per the advisory)
-
Locate DeviceId.java componentSearch for the file DeviceId.java in the Android framework system partition (typically under /system/framework/ or within the com.android.internal.telephony package) using 'find /system -name DeviceId.java 2>/dev/null' or decompile system librariesAffected if The DeviceId.java file exists in the Android framework, enabling the vulnerable persistence logic
-
Verify DeviceId persistence feature is in useCheck if applications or system services access the DeviceId API (android.provider.DeviceId or similar) by reviewing app manifest permissions and examining logcat for DeviceId-related operationsAffected if DeviceId persistence is actively used by any app or system service on the device, creating an attack surface
-
Check for apps with elevated privilegesList installed privileged applications (system apps in /system/priv-app/) that may interact with device identity storage: 'ls /system/priv-app/' and review which apps hold READ_PHONE_STATE or similar permissionsAffected if Privileged applications exist that could potentially be targeted for privilege escalation via the vulnerability
A device is affected if it runs any version of Android and contains the DeviceId.java component with its persistence functionality accessible to local attackers.
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 bounds validation before any array or buffer access in the DeviceId persistence code to ensure all indices remain within valid ranges.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-48611 — 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-2025-48611 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