CVE-2023-52554
Huawei Harmonyos 2.0.0 … 4.0.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-52554 is a medium-severity Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource (CWE-732) vulnerability in Huawei Harmonyos. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).
Operationally, ranked at the 6th 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-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-6 (Least Privilege) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-57179
Vulnerability Data
Permission control vulnerability in the Bluetooth module. Impact: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability may affect service confidentiality.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Enforces the access control policy that defines permissions on resources, thereby stopping incorrect assignments from remaining exploitable.
Directly requires assignment of only the minimum necessary permissions, preventing overly broad grants on critical resources.
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.5.1 only requires the existence of an overarching policy and topic-specific policies (including on access control); it does not itself enforce, implement, or act on permissions and therefore cannot stop CWE-732 from being exploitable.
A.5.12 only defines and communicates a classification scheme (with owners accountable for applying it); it does not itself enforce, restrict or decide any permissions, so the CWE-732 permission flaw can still be present and exploitable.
A.5.15 directly requires determining access needs, defining and communicating an access control policy, implementing rules that map rights/restrictions to entities (including consistency with classification), and considering need-to-know, privileged restrictions, segregation, formal authorization, and dynamic factors — which squarely stops most incorrect permission assignments from being exploitable; the bounded remainder is misconfigurations that violate the policy itself.
A.5.18 directly governs the provisioning, review, adjustment and revocation of logical access rights (including for critical resources) according to business needs, policy, SoD and risk, which stops most unintended actors from reading/modifying via incorrect permissions; the bounded remainder is incorrect permission assignments that are not access-right decisions at all (e.g. filesystem umask, ACL syntax errors).
Documented responsibility for protecting assets encourages correct permission settings rather than leaving them at insecure defaults.
Monitoring supplier policy changes and conducting audits can reveal incorrect permission assignments on resources managed by the supplier, prompting corrective action before they are exploited.
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.