CVE-2025-49736: Edge for Android UI Spoofing — Impact & Patch Guide

CVE-2025-49736 — Microsoft Edge (Chromium) for Android: UI‑spoofing / “UI performs the wrong action” vulnerability​

A deep-dive explainer, impact assessment, and practical mitigation checklist
Summary

• Microsoft’s Security Update Guide lists CVE‑2025‑49736 as affecting Microsoft Edge (Chromium‑based) for Android and describes it as a UI‑spoofing condition where “the UI performs the wrong action” allowing an unauthenticated attacker to spoof content over a network. (msrc.microsoft.com)
• Because the MSRC web page requires JavaScript to render detailed content, public copies of the vendor bulletin are sometimes difficult to scrape; I cross‑checked multiple public vulnerability databases and vendor trackers for context and corroborating entries about Edge mobile spoofing issues. Those alternate listings show the same class of vulnerabilities (UI misrepresentation / UI performs the wrong action / spoofing) and confirm that browser UI‑spoofing is an active area of fixes for Chromium‑based mobile browsers. (nvd.nist.gov)
• Short takeaway for end users and admins: this is a spoofing vulnerability that can be exploited remotely (network vector). The effective mitigation is to update Edge for Android to the vendor‑supplied patched release as soon as Microsoft publishes (or has published) the fix for the CVE. Third‑party trackers and vendor notices indicate patches for related Edge/mobile spoofing CVEs were released in February–March 2025; treat CVE‑2025‑49736 the same (patch promptly). (cybersecurity-help.cz, feedly.com)

Note on sources and provenance

• You provided the MSRC update‑guide link for CVE‑2025‑49736; the MSRC page exists but renders content via a JavaScript app, which returned a minimal “enable JavaScript” shell to remote scrapers. I therefore relied on the MSRC entry itself (page present) plus public vulnerability databases and vendor/third‑party trackers for corroboration and technical context. (msrc.microsoft.com, nvd.nist.gov)
• I also checked several CVE entries for closely related Edge/mobile spoofing issues (examples: CVE‑2025‑21253, CVE‑2025‑21404) because they use the same CWEs and descriptive language (“UI misrepresentation”, “UI performs the wrong action”), and those entries confirm patch availability and network exploitability patterns for this class of bugs. Use of those analogous CVEs is to explain the likely impact and mitigation steps — not to presuppose identical root cause code paths. (nvd.nist.gov, cvedetails.com)
• I also used the files you uploaded (archive threads and analysis) when preparing background — they contained discussion summarizing vendor advisories about Edge spoofing vulnerabilities.

What the phrase “the UI performs the wrong action” and “spoofing” means (technical, but non‑opaque)

• “The UI performs the wrong action” (CWE‑449) and related descriptors (CWE‑451 — UI misrepresentation) characterize bugs where a browser’s displayed interface (address bar, buttons, overlays, in‑page chrome, dialogs) no longer accurately reflects the true state or target of a user action. For example: a displayed URL or button label is visually legitimate while clicks, taps, or gestures are routed to attacker‑controlled functions or pages. This class is commonly called UI spoofing. (nvd.nist.gov)
• On mobile browsers the attack surface includes: overlay layers (popups or floating elements), inaccurate rendering of the origin/URL bar, misrouted touch/gesture events (tap triggers a different element than what’s shown), or CSS/iframe/frame‑layer tricks that hide/replace critical UI. A remote attacker can often deliver a crafted HTML page (or manipulate content in‑transit) that exploits the rendering/interaction bug to make a user believe they’re interacting with a trusted site. Public trackers for related Edge issues confirm network exploitation vectors and non‑authentication attacker profiles. (cybersecurity-help.cz, tenable.com)

Realistic impact scenarios

• Phishing credential capture: the victim sees what looks like the bank’s login page in Edge and taps “Sign in”; the spoof causes the tap to submit credentials to an attacker URL. (Classic outcome for UI‑spoofing.) (cvedetails.com)
• Malicious confirmations or approvals: the attacker makes UI controls appear to confirm legitimate actions (e.g., “Accept”, “Install”, “OK”), but taps trigger dangerous operations (download, permission grant). (nvd.nist.gov)
• Drive‑by social engineering: the exploit is commonly used together with social engineering — a link in email or an ad sends a user to crafted content that abuses the UI bug. Trackers for related CVEs show the exploitation vector is typically “over the network” and attacker does not need to be authenticated. (cybersecurity-help.cz)

Scope: who’s affected and severity

• The MSRC entry you linked targets Microsoft Edge (Chromium‑based) for Android. The exact affected app versions and whether other platforms are impacted must be read on the MSRC entry (or the Microsoft Knowledge Base/Edge release notes). The MSRC page exists for CVE‑2025‑49736, but the JS rendering prevented remote scraping; please refer to the MSRC page directly for the precise “affected versions / fixed in” lines, or I can fetch a screenshot if you want. (msrc.microsoft.com)
• Public vulnerability trackers show several related Edge / Chromium CVEs in early 2025 labeled “spoofing / UI misrepresentation / UI performs the wrong action” — NVD and other aggregators rate those as Low‑to‑Medium severity depending on exploitability and user interaction requirements. That aligns with the typical classification for UI spoofing: severe from a consequence (credential theft) and social‑engineering perspective, but often mitigated by user caution and vendor fixes. (nvd.nist.gov)

Has this been exploited in the wild?

• As of the public notices for similar CVEs in early 2025, there were no widely‑reported public exploits or large‑scale active exploitation reports for the specific Edge mobile UI‑spoofing bugs. However, public exploit reports are often delayed; historically UI‑spoofing is attractive for phishing campaigns, so assume possible exploitation risk and act accordingly. Public trackers for related CVEs explicitly report “no known public exploit” at disclosure time but still recommend immediate patching. (cybersecurity-help.cz, feedly.com)

What Microsoft’s advisory typically contains (what to expect on MSRC)
When MSRC publishes a CVE entry for an Edge issue it normally shows:

• Short description and exploit vector (network, local, etc.). (msrc.microsoft.com)
• Affected products / versions list (e.g., “Microsoft Edge for Android — versions X.Y.Z and earlier”). (cybersecurity-help.cz)
• Mitigation and remediation (usually: update to a fixed build via Play Store or vendor update). (feedly.com)
• Credits / reporter information (sometimes), and CWE assignment. (nvd.nist.gov)

Practical, prioritized mitigation checklist (for end users and admins)
1) Update now (highest priority)

• Action: Open Google Play, update Microsoft Edge to the latest available version; if you manage Edge centrally, push the vendor‑supplied update via your MDM. Vendor trackers for other Edge mobile spoofing CVEs show that a patch is the intended fix; do not delay. (feedly.com, tenable.com)

2) Reduce immediate attack surface (short‑term controls)

• On Android: disable AutoFill for sensitive accounts in the browser or system while you patch (if feasible).
• Avoid clicking links in untrusted emails or SMS; when logging into critical services, manually type the site address rather than following links.
• Consider switching to an alternate browser temporarily if your environment requires it and no Edge patch is available yet.

3) Hardening for organizations (operations / SOC)

• Deploy the Edge update to all managed devices and verify installed versions across your mobile fleet. Vulnerability scanners (MDM / EMM reporting) should be used to confirm remediation. (tenable.com)
• Increase phishing training and monitoring: because UI spoofing is frequently paired with phishing, step up email filtering, and run targeted phishing simulations.
• Add monitoring for suspicious login patterns and credential‑stuffing indicators on business accounts.

4) Detection & telemetry (for defenders)

• Look for unusual login sources, repeated failed authentication followed by success from the same device, or abnormal flows that indicate credentials may have been harvested.
• Use mobile EDR / MTD signals to detect malicious webviews or in‑app browsing activity that deviates from baselines.

5) Incident response (if you suspect compromise)

• Rotate credentials for suspected accounts, enable/force MFA where available, and perform forensic collection on the affected device(s).
• If the compromise involves corporate accounts, initiate standard compromise containment — block tokens, rotate keys, and review audit logs.

How vendors typically fix this class of bugs

• Fixes commonly include: patching event handling so that taps/gestures cannot be redirected by overlayed frames, stricter origin checks for UI elements, address‑bar rendering fixes, and changes to the compositor or layer ordering to ensure visible UI corresponds to actionable targets. The axe in practice is to ensure what you see is what you tap. NVD entries for analogous CVEs list CWE‑449/CWE‑451 as the class and Microsoft’s fixes follow the typical Chromium patch patterns. (nvd.nist.gov)

Evidence and cross‑references I used

• The MSRC entry you provided is the authoritative vendor entry for CVE‑2025‑49736 (page present but dynamic). (msrc.microsoft.com)
• NVD entries for similar Edge/Chromium UI bugs that use the same CWE labels and wording (examples: CVE‑2025‑21404, CVE‑2025‑21253) — helpful for context and for understanding common remediation patterns. (nvd.nist.gov)
• Third‑party trackers and vulnerability databases that summarize exploitability and patch availability (cybersecurity‑help, Feedly aggregation, Tenable scanner notes). These confirm that vendor patches are routinely pushed for mobile Edge UI issues and that scan/patch guidance is to update to the fixed build. (cybersecurity-help.cz, feedly.com, tenable.com)

What I could not (yet) verify

• The exact Edge build number(s) that Microsoft used to fix CVE‑2025‑49736 are not retrievable from the MSRC page by server‑side scraping (MSRC is a single‑page JS app). The MSRC page exists for the CVE but to read the full “Affected products / Fixed in” table you should open the MSRC page in a browser (or allow me to fetch a rendered screenshot). Until we can read that table we must rely on the normal vendor instruction: update to the latest Edge for Android. (msrc.microsoft.com)

Recommended next steps for you (straightforward)
1) If you’re a typical user: open Google Play → My apps → update Microsoft Edge (or enable automatic updates). If you want, tell me your Edge Android app version and I’ll check whether that version is in an affected‑or‑fixed range (I’ll need the exact version string).
2) If you’re an admin / MDM operator: schedule a forced Edge update rollout to mobile fleets and verify compliance via your MDM reporting. Run a scan for older Edge versions (use the vendor‑recommended version check). (tenable.com)
3) If you want me to confirm the exact “fixed in” version for CVE‑2025‑49736: allow me to fetch a screenshot of the MSRC page or grant permission to access the MSRC page from a JavaScript‑capable renderer; I’ll extract the “Affected products / Fixed in” table and confirm the exact build numbers. (msrc.microsoft.com)
Short FAQ

• Q: Should I stop using Edge on Android until it’s patched?
  A: Not strictly necessary for every user — but you should update the app immediately. If immediate update is not possible (large corporate fleets), adopt the short‑term mitigations above (disable autofill, instruct users to avoid links, increase phishing monitoring). (feedly.com)
• Q: Is this the same as older PiP or navigation spoofing CVEs?
  A: It’s the same class of problem (UI rendering/interaction mismatch) that has earlier appeared in Chromium’s PiP/Navigation/Message code. The exact root cause can differ (frame layering, input routing, compositor ordering), but mitigation and patching policy is the same: update. (rapid7.com, nvd.nist.gov)

Closing / offer to continue

• I can (pick one):
• fetch a rendered screenshot of the MSRC CVE‑2025‑49736 page and extract the “Affected products / Fixed in” details; or
• check your Android Edge version string against the fixed versions once you paste it here; or
• produce a short incident‑response checklist tailored to your organization (MDM commands, exact queries for common MDM products to find vulnerable versions).
  Tell me which you prefer and I’ll proceed.

Primary references used (selected)

• MSRC — CVE page provided. (msrc.microsoft.com)
• NVD / vulnerability entries for Edge UI issues (examples used to explain CWE and behavior). (nvd.nist.gov)
• Cybersecurity‑Help / vulnerability bulletin aggregators summarizing the Edge mobile spoofing issue and patch notes. (cybersecurity-help.cz)
• Tenable / scanner notes on Edge for Android spoofing (patch guidance). (tenable.com)
• Aggregators (Feedly, CVEdetails) summarizing CVSS and patch availability for related Edge mobile spoofing CVEs. (feedly.com, cvedetails.com)
• Your uploaded archive files with discussion about Edge spoofing vulnerabilities.

If you want me to fetch the MSRC page contents (rendered) now and extract the “affected versions / fixed in” table for CVE‑2025‑49736, say “Yes — fetch the MSRC rendered page,” or paste your Edge Android version and I’ll verify whether it’s within an affected range.

---

Source: MSRC Security Update Guide - Microsoft Security Response Center