Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-4164 is a high-severity Exposure of Sensitive Information to an Unauthorized Actor (CWE-200) vulnerability in Google Android. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 0.2th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) and AC-25 (Reference Monitor) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-54043
Vulnerability Data
There is a possible information disclosure due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local information disclosure of health data with no additional execution privileges needed.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Access enforcement directly stops unauthorized actors from obtaining sensitive information.
Information flow enforcement structurally prevents sensitive data from reaching unauthorized recipients.
Protection of information at rest prevents unauthorized exposure of stored sensitive data.
Transmission confidentiality mechanisms stop exposure of sensitive data on the wire.
AC-24 mandates that access control decisions are applied to each request, preventing bypass of authorization logic.
AC-25 requires a tamperproof, always-invoked reference monitor that ensures authorization checks cannot be omitted.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
A.5.10 only requires awareness, a topic-specific acceptable-use policy stating expected behaviours/monitoring, and procedures referencing classification and other controls; per the owner's explicit rule on labelling and similar dependency-style clauses, this does not itself prevent exposure (CWE-200) unless access/DLP/etc. act on it.
Requiring the return of all physical and electronic assets plus secure deletion of organizational data from personal devices reduces the chance that sensitive information remains accessible to departing personnel.
A.5.12 only defines and communicates a classification scheme so that protection needs can be understood; per the owner's explicit rule, labeling/classification does not itself prevent exposure and requires other controls (e.g. access enforcement) to act on it.
By requiring classification labels and metadata on all information assets, the control makes it harder for sensitive data to be inadvertently exposed because downstream systems and users can recognize and enforce handling rules based on those labels.
Requiring encryption, access controls, and recipient authentication for transfers directly reduces the chance that sensitive data reaches an unauthorized observer.
Requiring formal authorization of every access request before rights are granted ensures that checks for required permissions are performed, preventing missing authorization checks from being introduced.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.