Security Resilience

CVE-2023-52534

Google Android 12.0 … 14.0

Published
08 April 2024
Modified
06 May 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.9
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0032 24th percentile
Risk Priority 49 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2023-52534 is a medium-severity Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions (CWE-754) vulnerability in Google Android. Its CVSS base score is 5.9 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 24th 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 SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

In ngmm, there is a possible undefined behavior due to incorrect error handling. This could lead to remote denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-52343Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-52341Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-33914Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-52342Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-33915Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-52344Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-52533Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-33913Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-42726Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-42725Same product: Google Android

Affected Assets

google
android
12.0, 13.0, 14.0

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation explicitly exercises unusual conditions to find missing or incorrect checks.

Input validation directly requires checking for unexpected or malformed conditions before they propagate.

Security engineering principles include structured handling of edge cases and exceptions during design.

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.8.15 Logging partial match
finds

Logging can record unhandled exceptions but does not prevent the weakness itself.

finds

Monitoring may detect symptoms of unhandled conditions but does not eliminate the root weakness.

blocks

Secure development life cycle mandates exception handling and input validation that directly prevent missing checks for unusual conditions.

blocks

Application security requirements explicitly call for handling of exceptional conditions and error paths.

blocks

A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (fail securely, least privilege, distrust external input, security-oriented design reviews) that reach some but not most CWE-754 cases; many exceptional-condition checks live in low-level code paths outside architecture-level engineering.

prevents

Secure coding standards directly mandate proper checks for exceptional and unusual conditions.

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.

  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-754, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-354.

References