Security Resilience

CVE-2024-0014

Google Android 11.0 … 14.0

Published
16 February 2024
Modified
28 March 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 7.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.0014 3th percentile
Risk Priority 54 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-2024-0014 is a high-severity Protection Mechanism Failure (CWE-693) vulnerability in Google Android. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).

Operationally, ranked at the 3th 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-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

In startInstall of UpdateFetcher.java, there is a possible way to trigger a malicious config update due to a logic error. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for…

more

exploitation.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2026-57012Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-56970Same product: Google Android
CVE-2025-22429Same product: Google Android
CVE-2025-36938Same product: Google Android
CVE-2024-0029Same product: Google Android
CVE-2025-48602Same product: Google Android
CVE-2025-48605Same product: Google Android
CVE-2023-20919Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-0045Same product: Google Android
CVE-2026-0118Same product: Google Android

Affected Assets

google
android
11.0, 12.0, 12.1, 13.0, 14.0

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

AC-3 directly requires enforcement of access authorizations via the protection mechanism itself.

AC-4 mandates use of information flow enforcement mechanisms to control data movement.

SC-2 requires separation of user and system functionality as a protection mechanism.

SC-28 requires protection mechanisms for information at rest.

SC-3 requires isolation of security functions from non-security functions.

SC-7 requires boundary protection mechanisms to monitor and control external communications.

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.

finds

Systematic verification that security mechanisms operate according to defined standards reduces the likelihood that protection mechanisms are bypassed or disabled.

removes

A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including protection mechanisms) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself mandate, implement, or enforce the mechanisms that would remove CWE-693 instances from the product.

removes

A.8.28 mandates secure coding practices, principles, standards, design, peer review, defect removal, prohibition of insecure techniques (e.g. hard-coded passwords), and evaluation of common errors before deployment, which directly removes many instances of missing or incorrectly used protection mechanisms from first-party code; the bounded remainder is third-party components and post-deployment issues handled by other clauses (8.8, 8.29).

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-693, a pillar-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-654, CWE-757.

References