CVE-2025-48574
Access Control in Google Android 14.0 … 16.0
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-2025-48574 is a high-severity Missing Authorization (CWE-862) vulnerability in Google Android. Its CVSS base score is 8.4 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 0.8th 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2025-48574 is a vulnerability in the validateAddingWindowLw function of DisplayPolicy.java within Android. It arises from a missing permission check that enables an application to intercept drag-and-drop events. This flaw could lead to local escalation of privilege, requiring no additional execution privileges and no user interaction for exploitation. The issue is scored at CVSS 3.1 8.4 (AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H) and maps to CWE-862 (Missing Authorization).
A local attacker with access to the device can exploit this vulnerability by installing and running a malicious app. Given the low attack complexity, lack of required privileges, and absence of user interaction, the attacker can achieve high impacts on confidentiality, integrity, and availability via privilege escalation.
The Android March 2026 security bulletin at https://source.android.com/docs/security/bulletin/2026/2026-03-01 details available patches and mitigation guidance for this vulnerability.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2025-208200
Vulnerability Data
In validateAddingWindowLw of DisplayPolicy.java, there is a possible way for an app to intercept drag-and-drop events due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not…
more
needed for exploitation.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 5 hardening rules · 3 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
AC-3 directly requires enforcement of authorization decisions on every access request, structurally eliminating missing authorization checks.
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.
AC-6 reduces the set of actions reachable without proper authorization, limiting blast radius of missing checks.
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.
Explicitly requires defining, enforcing, and reviewing authorizations and least privilege, directly preventing missing authorization checks.
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.
Requiring authentication and credentials before any access occurs eliminates the absence of authorization checks that would otherwise allow an unauthenticated actor to reach protected resources.
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.
Mandatory authorization checks and central records of granted rights ensure that every access attempt is preceded by an explicit decision rather than relying on missing checks.
Segregating the approval of access rights from their implementation provides an independent check that reduces the impact of missing authorization checks in the resulting system configuration.
By requiring competent outsiders to verify that every function enforces the need-to-know principle, the control lowers the likelihood that missing authorization checks persist undetected.
Defining authorization responsibilities and reviewing risk-treatment progress throughout the project lifecycle catches missing authorization checks before the system is deployed.
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` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (2 rules)
- V-248581 OL 8 must require users to provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
- V-252656 The OL 8 operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
RHEL 7 (2 rules)
- V-251704 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must not be configured to bypass password requirements for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862
- V-204429 The Red Hat Enterprise Linux operating system must be configured so that users must provide a password for privilege escalation. prevents CWE-862