CVE-2021-25370
Memory Safety in Samsung Android 10.0 … 9.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2021-25370 is a medium-severity Use After Free (CWE-416) vulnerability in Samsung Android. Its CVSS base score is 6.1 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked in the top 44% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; CISA has added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
The vulnerability CVE-2021-25370 stems from an incorrect implementation of file descriptor handling in the DPU driver, which produces memory corruption and a subsequent kernel panic. It affects Samsung devices running versions prior to the SMR Mar-2021 Release 1. The flaw is tracked under CWE-416 and CWE-703 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 6.1.
Exploitation requires physical access to a device, high attack complexity, and high privileges; successful attacks can produce high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability, although the immediate technical outcome described is a kernel panic that crashes the system.
Samsung security bulletins for the March 2021 maintenance release contain the corresponding patches and device-specific remediation guidance. The CVE is also catalogued by CISA among known exploited vulnerabilities, confirming observed in-the-wild activity.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2021-12266
Vulnerability Data
An incorrect implementation handling file descriptor in dpu driver prior to SMR Mar-2021 Release 1 results in memory corruption leading to kernel panic.
- CWE(s)
- KEV Date Added
- 08 November 2022
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 3 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
V1.4.3
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Implements explicit check and handling for the exceptional condition of audit logging process failure.
Establishing and monitoring system metrics with correlation and response actions helps identify and address improper handling of exceptional conditions.
Provides a defined response to detected conditions by restricting operation, ensuring exceptional conditions are handled rather than ignored or mishandled.
Contingency training equips users with defined procedures to check and respond to exceptional conditions during disruptions, reducing exploitation of mishandled errors.
Testing verifies the system's ability to detect, handle, and recover from exceptional conditions as part of the plan, reducing exploitability of improper exception handling.
Regular updates keep contingency procedures aligned with system changes, providing structured handling for exceptional conditions that would otherwise allow unmitigated exploitation.
Policy defines checks and handling for exceptional conditions arising from security incidents.
Performing IR tests ensures exceptional conditions are properly checked and handled to enable effective response.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly incorporate memory-safety tooling and reviews that prevent most use-after-free defects.
Vulnerability identification processes can discover use-after-free issues via scanning or analysis but do not prevent their introduction.
Routine patching removes known use-after-free instances after they have been introduced in released software.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development can detect use-after-free bugs before release.
Secure SDLC mandates memory-safety practices that reduce use-after-free defects.
Application security requirements can specify memory-management rules that mitigate use-after-free.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety design choices that limit use-after-free exposure.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe avoidance of use-after-free patterns.
Change-management processes help ensure memory-safety fixes are deployed consistently.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248592 OL 8 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416
RHEL 8 (1 rule)
- V-230279 RHEL 8 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416
RHEL 9 (1 rule)
- V-257794 RHEL 9 must clear memory when it is freed to prevent use-after-free attacks. prevents CWE-416