CVE-2023-42709
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 firewall service, there is a possible way to write permission usage records of an app due to 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 confidenceThis is a local privilege escalation/information disclosure vulnerability in a firewall service where a missing permission check allows an app to write permission usage records. An attacker with local access could exploit this to access sensitive permission usage data they shouldn't have access to, without needing elevated privileges.
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= 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
- 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.
-
Check Android versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if The version is exactly 11.0 or 12.0 (these are the affected versions per this CVE)
-
Identify firewall service presenceCheck for running firewall-related system services via 'dumpsys' command: run 'dumpsys activity services | grep -i firewall' in ADB shellAffected if A firewall service component exists and is running on the affected Android version
-
Verify permission enforcement on firewall serviceUse 'dumpsys package <service_component_name>' to inspect the service's permission requirements in the manifest, looking for any WRITE or READ permission checks on permission usage recordsAffected if The service lacks proper Binder or signature permission checks before allowing write access to permission usage data
-
Test for unauthorized permission record accessAttempt to query permission usage records through the firewall service interface using a non-privileged test app or via 'content query' commands on permission usage content provider if exposedAffected if Non-privileged apps can read or write permission usage records that should require elevated permissions
You are affected if your device runs Android 11.0 or 12.0 AND the firewall service with the missing permission check is present and accessible on your device.
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 dataAdd proper permission checks (e.g., Binder permission check or signature/privileged permission enforcement) in the firewall service code before allowing write access to permission usage records. Restrict access to only authorized system components.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-42709 — 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-2023-42709 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