Default status is the baseline for the product, each version can override it (e.g. patched versions marked unaffected).
| Vendor | Product | Default status | Versions | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Android | unaffected |
|
Configuration 1 [-]
|
No data.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Android |
|
No CVSS v4.0
No CVSS v3.0
No CVSS v2
This CVE is not in the KEV list.
Exploit prediction score: < 1% (0.067% probability within 30 days)
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:google:android:16.0:qpr2_beta_2:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:google:android:16.0:qpr2_beta_3:*:*:*:*:*:* |
cpe:2.3:o:google:android:16.0:qpr2:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:google:android:17.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:* |
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:google:android:16.0:qpr2_beta_1:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:google:android:16.0:qpr2_beta_2:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:google:android:16.0:qpr2_beta_3:*:*:*:*:*:* |
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| CPEs | cpe:2.3:o:google:android:14.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:google:android:15.0:*:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:google:android:16.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:* cpe:2.3:o:google:android:16.0:qpr2:*:*:*:*:*:* |
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Local Privilege Escalation via WindowManager Tapjacking in Android | |
| Weaknesses | CWE-284 |
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Weaknesses | CWE-1021 | |
| Metrics |
cvssV3_1
|
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Title | Local Privilege Escalation via WindowManager Tapjacking in Android | |
| First Time appeared |
Google
Google android |
|
| Weaknesses | CWE-284 | |
| Vendors & Products |
Google
Google android |
| Type | Values Removed | Values Added |
|---|---|---|
| Description | In addWindow of WindowManagerService.java, there is a possible tapjacking issue due to a tapjacking/overlay attack. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | |
| References |
|