CVE-2026-0094
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 getApplicationLabel of KeyChainActivity.java, there is a possible way to trick the user into approving access to certificates due to misleading or insufficient UI. This could lead to local escalation of privilege 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 confidenceIn Android's KeyChainActivity.java, the getApplicationLabel function displays the name of applications requesting certificate access. A vulnerability allows a malicious local application to manipulate or spoof the displayed application label, tricking the system or users into granting certificate access. This enables local privilege escalation as the attacker can obtain certificate access intended for another application without additional execution 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= 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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 versionRun 'adb shell getprop ro.build.version.release' or go to Settings > About Phone > Android versionAffected if Version is exactly 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0
-
Identify apps with certificate accessGo to Settings > Security > Trusted credentials > User tab, or use 'adb shell dumpsys package' to list packages with USE_CREDENTIALS or INSTALL_CERTIFICATES permissionsAffected if A suspicious or untrusted app has been granted access to user certificates
-
Review recently installed apps from untrusted sourcesCheck Settings > Apps > App info for unknown or suspicious applications, particularly those requesting certificate or keychain permissionsAffected if A malicious app is installed that could exploit the UI spoofing during certificate requests
-
Inspect KeyChain activity logsRun 'adb logcat -b events' and filter for KeyChainActivity or certificate access events to see which apps are requesting certificate accessAffected if Certificate access requests display application labels that do not match verified package names
You are affected if your Android version is 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0 AND a malicious or untrusted app with certificate access permissions is installed 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 dataFix the getApplicationLabel function in KeyChainActivity.java to properly verify and display the true identity of the requesting application, ensuring the UI cannot be misled by a malicious app's label manipulation.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-0094 — 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-2026-0094 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