CVE-2022-39094
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 power management service, there is a missing permission check. This could lead to set up power management service with no additional execution privileges needed.
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 permission check in the power management service allows an unprivileged attacker to configure or set up the power management service without requiring additional execution privileges. This represents a privilege escalation vulnerability where the service fails to validate the caller's authorization before allowing service configuration.
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= 10.0= 11.0= 12.0CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Check Android versionRun 'adb shell getprop ro.build.version.release' or check Settings > About Phone > Android versionAffected if The version returned is 10.0, 11.0, or 12.0
-
Identify power management serviceRun 'adb shell dumpsys -l' to list all system services and locate power management related services (often named 'power', 'power_manager', or similar in the output)Affected if A power management service exists on the device (it should on all standard Android builds)
-
Verify service permission configurationRun 'adb shell dumpsys <power_service_name> permissions' or 'adb shell service check <service_name>' to inspect what permissions are required to access the serviceAffected if The service shows no authorization check or allows access from unprivileged applications without any permission requirement
-
Test service access from unprivileged contextAttempt to call the power management service API from a standard (non-system, non-privileged) application to see if configuration changes are accepted without permission errorsAffected if Service accepts configuration commands and returns success without requiring SYSTEMPrivileged permission or similar elevated access
You are affected if your Android device runs version 10.0, 11.0, or 12.0 and the power management service permits service configuration without verifying caller authorization (missing permission checks found in dumpsys output or successful unprivileged access).
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 permission/authorization checks in the power management service to verify that only privileged users can configure or set up the service.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,088.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-39094 — 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-2022-39094 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