CVE-2023-42714
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 confidenceIn the firewall service component, a missing permission check allows an unprivileged local application to write permission usage records. This improper access control enables unauthorized access to sensitive permission usage data, resulting in local information disclosure without requiring 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 Version is exactly 11.0 or exactly 12.0
-
Verify firewall service component existsCheck for firewall service in system - look for 'firewall' or 'fw' related services in /system/etc/init or via 'dumpsys' command listing all servicesAffected if Firewall service is present on the device
-
Identify permission usage records locationSearch for permission_usage, permission_records, or similar data directories in /data or /system partition - common paths include /data/data/com.android.permission or /data/system/permission_usageAffected if Permission usage records directory exists and is accessible
-
Test write access to permission usage dataAttempt to write to known permission usage record files using a non-privileged shell account (via ADB or an unprivileged app)Affected if Write operation succeeds without permission denial - indicating missing access control
A device is affected if it runs Android 11.0 or 12.0 and the firewall service component allows unprivileged write access to permission usage records without proper permission validation.
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 checks in the firewall service before allowing write access to permission usage records. This is typically done by adding runtime permission validation using standard Android permission enforcement mechanisms.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $4,960.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-42714 — 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-2023-42714 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