Security Resilience

CVE-2026-28889

LPE in Apple Xcode ≤ 26.4

Published
25 March 2026
Modified
26 March 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.2
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0015 4th percentile
Risk Priority 45 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-2026-28889 is a medium-severity Improper Privilege Management (CWE-269) vulnerability in Apple Xcode. Its CVSS base score is 6.2 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 4th 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-2 (Account Management) and AC-24 (Access Control Decisions) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A permissions issue was addressed with additional restrictions. This issue is fixed in Xcode 26.4. An app may be able to read arbitrary files as root.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-40862Same product: Apple Xcode
CVE-2024-44162Same product: Apple Xcode
CVE-2024-23298Same product: Apple Xcode
CVE-2023-27967Same product: Apple Xcode
CVE-2023-40435Same product: Apple Xcode
CVE-2024-44228Same product: Apple Xcode
CVE-2023-27945Same product: Apple Xcode
CVE-2023-23497Same vendor: Apple
CVE-2025-43333Same vendor: Apple
CVE-2025-46310Same vendor: Apple

Affected Assets

apple
xcode
≤ 26.4

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Account management directly governs assignment and tracking of privileges so proper implementation stops the weakness from being introduced.

Requiring explicit access-control decisions ensures privileges are evaluated rather than assumed or omitted.

Access enforcement applies the correct privilege checks at every request, structurally preventing unintended spheres of control.

Separation of duties constrains how privileges may be assigned, reducing the chance of overly broad actor control.

Least privilege is the direct countermeasure to improper privilege management; implementing it eliminates the root cause.

Binding security attributes to subjects/objects supplies the mechanism needed to track and enforce privileges correctly.

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.

blocks

A.5.15 directly mandates determining access requirements, defining/enforcing topic-specific access control policy, assigning rights/restrictions by entity/role, consistency with classification, need-to-know, privileged access restrictions, segregation, formal authorization, and dynamic rules — which stops most improper privilege management from being exploitable; bounded remainder is flawed implementation of those rules (e.g. incorrect mapping or enforcement bugs).

blocks

A.5.18 directly governs the provisioning, review, modification and timely revocation of access rights (including for role changes, termination and privilege levels), which stops most improper privilege spheres from being exploitable even if the assignment flaw exists; the bounded remainder is flaws in the underlying enforcement mechanism itself (e.g. AC-3/A.8.3)

blocks

A.8.2 directly controls the identification, allocation, review, expiry, temporary use, and separation of privileged rights per policy, which prevents most improper privilege management (CWE-269) by design; the bounded remainder is flawed tracking/checking logic inside the product's own enforcement code (the AC-3 slice of 269).

blocks

A.8.3 directly restricts access per policies (config mechanisms, per-user/group rights, isolation, dynamic techniques, auth/credential enforcement), which stops exploitation of most improper privilege management cases even if the assignment/tracking flaw remains; named remainder exists for non-access-control privilege errors (e.g. pure assignment bugs outside enforcement).

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.

References