CVE-2022-20458
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 · uneditedThe logs of sensitive information (PII) or hardware identifier should only be printed in Android "userdebug" or "eng" build. StatusBarNotification.getKey() could contain sensitive information. However, CarNotificationListener.java, it prints out the StatusBarNotification.getKey() directly in logs, which could contain user's account name (i.e. PII), in Android "user" build.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-12LAndroid ID: A-205567776
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 confidenceIn CarNotificationListener.java, the StatusBarNotification.getKey() method is being logged directly without build-type checks. Since getKey() can contain user account names (PII), this exposes sensitive information in Android 'user' builds where logging such data should be suppressed. The fix requires wrapping the logging call with a build-type conditional that only allows logging in 'userdebug' or 'eng' builds.
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= 12.1CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Locate CarNotificationListener.java in the codebaseSearch the Android system source tree for the file CarNotificationListener.javaAffected if The file exists in the codebase and contains references to StatusBarNotification.getKey() in logging statements
-
Identify logging of StatusBarNotification.getKey()Examine the code to find if StatusBarNotification.getKey() is passed to any logging method (Log.d, Log.i, Log.v, etc.)Affected if The getKey() return value is being logged directly without any filtering or redaction
-
Check for build-type conditional around loggingInspect the code surrounding the logging statement to see if it is wrapped with a build-type check (such as Build.IS_DEBUGGable or Build.TYPE checks for 'userdebug' or 'eng')Affected if The logging of getKey() happens unconditionally without any build-type guard, meaning it executes in production 'user' builds where PII logging should be suppressed
A user is affected if CarNotificationListener.java logs StatusBarNotification.getKey() without verifying that the build is a debuggable type (userdebug or eng), which would expose account names in production user builds.
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 dataModify CarNotificationListener.java to add a build-type check (e.g., Build.IS_DEBUGGABLE or similar) before logging StatusBarNotification.getKey(), ensuring PII is only logged in userdebug/eng builds, not in production user builds.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing1.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,456.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-20458 — 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-2022-20458 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