CVE-2023-44125
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 vulnerability is the use of implicit PendingIntents without the PendingIntent.FLAG_IMMUTABLE set that leads to theft and/or (over-)write of arbitrary files with system privilege in the Personalized service ("com.lge.abba") app. The attacker's app, if it had access to app notifications, could intercept them and redirect them to its activity, before making it grant access permissions to content providers with the `android:grantUriPermissions="true"` flag.
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 · high confidenceThe Personalized service (com.lge.abba) app uses implicit PendingIntents without the FLAG_IMMUTABLE flag, allowing malicious apps with notification access to intercept and redirect these intents. By redirecting to an attacker-controlled activity, the vulnerability enables granting of content provider permissions (android:grantUriPermissions='true') leading to arbitrary file theft/write with system 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= 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'adb shell getprop ro.build.version.release'Affected if The device runs Android 12.0 or 13.0 specifically (exact versions)
-
Identify if com.lge.abba app is installedRun 'adb shell pm list packages | grep lge.abba' or check in Settings > Apps for 'Personalized Service'Affected if The com.lge.abba (Personalized Service) app is installed on the device
-
Check for notification access granted to other appsGo to Settings > Apps > Special app access > Notification access, or run 'adb shell dumpsys notification' to list apps with notification listener permissionAffected if Any third-party app has notification access permission granted
-
Inspect content provider configurationsDecompile the com.lge.abba APK and examine AndroidManifest.xml for <provider> elements with android:grantUriPermissions='true'Affected if The app exposes content providers with android:grantUriPermissions='true' flag enabled
A device is affected if it runs Android 12.0 or 13.0, has the com.lge.abba (Personalized Service) app installed, and has any app with notification access permission present on the 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 FLAG_IMMUTABLE (or FLAG_MUTABLE if mutability is required) to all PendingIntents in the com.lge.abba app, and review content providers to remove unnecessary android:grantUriPermissions='true' flags.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 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 $7,968.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-44125 — 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-2023-44125 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