CVE-2023-33892
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 fastDial service, there is a missing permission check. This could lead to local information disclosure 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 fastDial service allows an attacker with local access to read sensitive information without proper authorization. The service fails to validate user permissions before disclosing data, enabling local information disclosure.
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= 12.0= 13.0CVSS 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
- 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.
-
Identify Android OS versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version (or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shell)Affected if The Android version is 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, or 13.0
-
Locate fastDial serviceRun 'dumpsys' or check system services list for 'fastDial' using 'adb shell dumpsys -l | grep -i fastdial' or similar service enumeration commandsAffected if The fastDial service is present and running on the device
-
Verify fastDial service permissionsRun 'adb shell dumpsys package <service_name>' or check the service manifest for permission requirements using 'adb shell pm dump <package>'Affected if The service does not require authentication/authorization or lacks permission checks before disclosing data
-
Test service accessibilityAttempt to query the fastDial service locally via ADB shell or a local app to see if sensitive data is returned without authenticationAffected if Sensitive information can be retrieved from the fastDial service without any user permission or authentication validation
-
Check service binding exposureReview if the fastDial service is exported and can be bound to by other local applications using 'adb shell dumpsys package <package_name>' and checking android:exported=trueAffected if The fastDial service is exported and accessible to other local applications without proper authorization checks
If the device runs Android 10-13 AND the fastDial service is present AND the service returns sensitive data without validating caller permissions, the environment is affected by CVE-2023-33892.
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 dataApply vendor patch for fastDial that implements proper permission validation. If no patch exists, restrict service account permissions and review code to add authorization checks before any data disclosure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $5,120.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-33892 — 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-2023-33892 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