Android: Missing Authorization
CVE-2022-20282 is a high-severity missing authorization vulnerability in Android, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an unauthenticated attacker, but only if a user takes part, for example by opening a link or file. Affected Android versions: Android-13. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.11% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of Android you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on source.android.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Because the attack needs a user to take part, warn users about unexpected links and files related to this product until it is patched.
Affected products and versions
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- RequiredA user must take an action such as opening a file or link.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
Official description
In AppWidget, there is a possible way to start an activity from the background due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-13Android ID: A-204083104
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Missing Authorization
The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
- Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Other vulnerabilities in Android
- 5.5 Medium severity
Android Pixel Information Disclosure Exploited
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Missing Authorization vulnerabilities
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 9.1 Critical severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.