CVE-2026-0085
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 applySimpleFieldMaxSize of DataRowHandler.java, there is a possible way to insert a large contact name due to improper input validation. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
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 vulnerability in the applySimpleFieldMaxSize function of DataRowHandler.java allows insertion of oversized contact names due to improper input validation, leading to local denial of service through resource exhaustion or database issues.
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= 14.0= 15.0= 16.0CVSS 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
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 to determine the installed OS version.Affected if The version is 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0.
-
Confirm Contacts feature is enabledVerify the Contacts app or contact-handling service is present and functional on the device (enabled by default on most Android devices).Affected if Contacts processing is active.
-
Inspect DataRowHandler.java for size limitsThere is no user-accessible config; the vulnerability is in the applySimpleFieldMaxSize method of DataRowHandler.java within the Android Contacts framework. Check system logs or crash reports for contact name handling errors, or review the source code if available.Affected if The method lacks proper size constraints on contact name fields, allowing excessively large inputs.
The environment is affected if the device runs Android 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0 and processes contact data without enforcing size limits on names.
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.
dbcve · scopedImplement proper input validation and size constraints on contact name fields in the applySimpleFieldMaxSize function to enforce reasonable length limits before database insertion.
Latest Android Security Patch Level (SPL) for Android 14, 15, or 16 as released by Google/device OEM
- Apply the latest Android Security Patch Level (SPL) update for your Android version via Settings > System > Software Update
- Verify the installed patch level in Settings > About Phone > Android version or by checking the Security Patch Level
- For device manufacturers: Update the framework-res.apk or contacts-common framework components that contain the fixed DataRowHandler.java
- Ensure the fix for applySimpleFieldMaxSize in DataRowHandler.java includes proper bounds checking on contact name length
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- 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-2026-0085 — 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-2026-0085 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