CVE-2019-2023
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 ServiceManager::add function in the hardware service manager, there is an insecure permissions check based on the PID of the caller. This could allow an app to add or replace a HAL service with its own service, gaining code execution in a privileged process.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-8.0 Android-8.1 Android-9Android ID: A-121035042Upstream kernel
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 · high confidenceIn Android's hardware service manager, the ServiceManager::add function uses an insecure PID-based check for permissions when adding HAL services. This allows a malicious application to potentially add or replace a HAL service with its own malicious service, achieving code execution within a privileged system process.
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= 8.0= 8.1= 9.0CVSS 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:3.0/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 versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if Version is 8.0, 8.1, or 9.0, indicating the device falls within the affected version range
-
Check security patch levelGo to Settings > About Phone > Security patch level, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' via ADB shellAffected if The patch level is earlier than the date Google released the fix for this vulnerability (typically early 2019 for affected versions)
-
Verify ServiceManager binary integrityCheck the system binary integrity via SafetyNet Attestation API or verify /system/lib64/libservicemanager.so hash against known-good values if availableAffected if The ServiceManager binary shows signs of modification or fails integrity checks, potentially indicating exploitation or tampering
-
Monitor for unauthorized HAL servicesUse 'hwservicemanager list' via ADB shell to enumerate registered HAL services and compare against expected services for your device modelAffected if Unexpected or duplicate HAL service names appear that do not correspond to standard hardware interfaces for your device
A device is affected if it runs Android 8.0, 8.1, or 9.0 and has not received the security patch that implements UID/SID-based permission verification in ServiceManager::add.
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 dataUpdate Android to a version that includes the patched ServiceManager with proper UID/SID-based permission verification instead of PID-based checks. The fix requires changes to the framework-level ServiceManager code.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,352.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-2023 — 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-2019-2023 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