CVE-2024-0048
Google Android 12.0 … 14.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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-2024-0048 is a high-severity Improper Handling of Missing Values (CWE-230) vulnerability in Google Android. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Junk Data (T1001.001); ranked at the 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 SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-15851
Vulnerability Data
In Session of AccountManagerService.java, there is a possible method to retain foreground service privileges due to incorrect handling of null responses. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed…
more
for exploitation.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 7 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Input validation directly requires checking that supplied parameters/fields have valid (non-missing) values before they are used.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require input validation and null/missing-value handling during coding and review.
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.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including input validation per item j) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself enforce, implement or assure correct handling of missing values, so the weakness can still be present and exploitable.
Secure coding standards can require validation that every supplied parameter has a non-null value.
Security testing can detect missing-value flaws but does not itself prevent them.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (higher-evidence rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (4 rules)
- V-248714 OL 8 must not allow accounts configured with blank or null passwords. blocks CWE-230
- V-248715 OL 8 must not allow blank or null passwords in the system-auth file. blocks CWE-230
- V-248716 OL 8 must not allow blank or null passwords in the password-auth file. blocks CWE-230
RHEL 7 (1 rule)
- V-204424 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not allow accounts configured with blank or null passwords. blocks CWE-230
Ubuntu 24.04 (1 rule)
- V-270714 Ubuntu 24.04 LTS must not allow accounts configured in Pluggable Authentication Modules (PAM) with blank or null passwords. blocks CWE-230