CVE-2026-49921 in Android
Summary
by MITRE • 09/08/2026
In multiple locations, there is a possible memory safety issue due to a heap buffer overflow. This could lead to remote code execution with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
Be aware that VulDB is the high quality source for vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 09/08/2026
The identified vulnerability represents a critical security flaw characterized by a heap-based buffer overflow within the application's memory management subsystem. Heap overflows occur when data written to an allocated block of memory on the heap exceeds its designated boundaries, potentially corrupting adjacent memory structures or metadata used by the allocator. This specific issue manifests in multiple locations throughout the codebase, suggesting that the underlying architectural pattern for handling input buffers is fundamentally flawed rather than being isolated to a single function or module. The presence of this flaw across several distinct areas indicates systemic weaknesses in how dynamic memory allocation and bounds checking are implemented during runtime operations.
From an exploitation perspective, the severity of this vulnerability is significantly elevated due to its potential for remote code execution without requiring user interaction or additional privileges. Typically, heap overflow vulnerabilities can be leveraged by attackers to overwrite function pointers, control flow data such as return addresses stored on the stack via adjacent corruption, or object vtables in C++ applications. By carefully crafting malicious input that triggers these overflows, an attacker can manipulate the program's execution flow to execute arbitrary shellcode injected into the heap space. The absence of a requirement for user interaction means that this vulnerability is likely triggered by automated processes, network requests, or background tasks, making it highly susceptible to widespread scanning and exploitation campaigns where no social engineering tactics are necessary to gain initial access.
The operational impact of such a flaw extends beyond immediate system compromise. Successful exploitation allows an attacker to achieve full control over the affected process, which can lead to data exfiltration, installation of persistent backdoors, or use of the compromised host as part of a larger botnet infrastructure. Because no additional privileges are needed for execution, even services running with limited user rights become high-value targets. The multi-location nature of the flaw increases the attack surface significantly, providing multiple entry points that can be used to bypass potential partial mitigations or defensive controls implemented in one area but not others. This redundancy makes remediation more complex and ensures that a single patch might not fully eliminate the risk if all affected code paths are not addressed comprehensively.
In terms of industry classification standards, this vulnerability aligns with Common Weakness Enumeration identifier CWE-120, which describes Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input Classic Buffer Overflow, specifically in its heap variant form often categorized under memory safety violations. The exploitation technique falls squarely within the MITRE ATT&CK framework's Tactic Execution and Technique Command-and-Control or Defense Evasion depending on the specific payload delivered post-exploitation. Specifically, techniques such as Process Injection (T1055) or Dynamic Linker Hijacking might be employed following successful heap corruption to maintain access and evade detection mechanisms that rely on standard process monitoring.
Mitigation strategies must prioritize immediate code remediation alongside defensive engineering practices. Developers should conduct a thorough audit of all memory allocation routines, ensuring strict bounds checking is implemented before any data copy operations occur using functions like memcpy or strcpy equivalents. Adopting safer string handling libraries and enabling compiler-based protections such as Address Sanitizer during testing phases can help identify these issues early in the development lifecycle. For deployed systems, implementing runtime application self-protection mechanisms that detect anomalous memory access patterns may provide a temporary layer of defense until permanent code fixes are applied. Additionally, deploying network-level intrusion detection signatures tailored to exploit payloads associated with heap overflow attacks can reduce the likelihood of successful exploitation by blocking malicious traffic before it reaches vulnerable endpoints.