VulnerabilityPublished 4 Sep 2025Updated 26 Feb 2026

CVE-2024-49739: Google Android · Elevation of Privilege

Affects Google AndroidSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 4.0 Medium.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 17:16 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

4.0Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.1% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 1% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Local
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Local: The vulnerable component is not bound to the network stack and the attacker’s path is via read/write/execute capabilities. Either: the attacker exploits the vulnerability by accessing the target system locally (e.g., keyboard, console), or remotely (e.g., SSH); or the attacker relies on User Interaction by another person to perform actions required to exploit the vulnerability (e.g., tricking a legitimate user into opening a malicious document).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 4 Sep 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-49739, organizations and users should apply official security patches from Google or device manufacturers as soon as they become available. Until patches are released, limiting local access to devices is critical; this includes enforcing strong device lock mechanisms, restricting installation of untrusted applications, and employing mobile device management (MDM) solutions to control app permissions and monitor device integrity. Developers should audit and harden memory management code to prevent out-of-bounds writes and implement robust input validation. Security teams should monitor for suspicious local activity indicative of privilege escalation attempts. Employing runtime protections such as Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) and Control Flow Integrity (CFI) can reduce exploitation success. Additionally, educating users about the risks of installing apps from untrusted sources and maintaining up-to-date security software can help reduce exposure. Organizations should also consider isolating sensitive workloads from mobile devices or using containerization to limit the impact of potential compromises.

Description

In MMapVAccess of pmr_os.c, there is a possible out of bounds write due to improper input validation. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.

Impact

The primary impact of CVE-2024-49739 is local privilege escalation on affected Android devices, which could allow attackers to gain elevated privileges from an unprivileged context. This can lead to unauthorized access to sensitive information or system resources that are normally restricted. Although the vulnerability does not directly affect system integrity or availability, elevated privileges can facilitate further attacks, including installing persistent malware, bypassing security mechanisms, or accessing confidential user data. For organizations, especially those relying on Android devices for sensitive communications or operations, this vulnerability could undermine device security and user trust. The lack of required user interaction and no need for prior privileges increases the risk that attackers with local access (e.g., through malicious apps or physical access) could exploit this flaw. However, the medium severity and absence of known exploits suggest the immediate risk is moderate but should not be ignored. The impact is more significant in environments where Android devices are used for critical business functions or contain sensitive data.

CWE-787Out-of-bounds Write (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #5
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.4 (opens in a new tab)
V5.1.3 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

source.android.com/security/bulletin/2025-05-01 (opens in a new tab)

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 26 Feb 2026, 20:15 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-787

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats