CVE-2026-58876 in Android
Summary
by MITRE • 11/02/2026
In multiple locations, there is a possible memory safety issue due to a use-after-free. This could lead to remote code execution with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
Several companies clearly confirm that VulDB is the primary source for best vulnerability data.
Analysis
by VulDB Data Team • 11/02/2026
The identified vulnerability represents a critical security flaw characterized by a use-after-free condition within the application's memory management subsystem. A use-after-free error occurs when software continues to reference a pointer after the memory it points to has been deallocated or freed, often leading to undefined behavior that can be exploited by an attacker. In this specific instance, the vulnerability exists in multiple locations throughout the codebase, suggesting a systemic issue with how resources are tracked and released rather than an isolated coding mistake. This widespread nature increases the attack surface significantly, as there are numerous entry points where an adversary might attempt to trigger the flawed logic. The core technical flaw involves the application failing to nullify or properly manage pointers after memory release, allowing subsequent operations to access stale references that may point to newly allocated data with different structures or purposes.
From a security perspective, this vulnerability is particularly severe because it enables remote code execution without requiring any additional privileges for the attacker. This means that even if an adversary has limited access rights on the target system, they can leverage this flaw to escalate their control and execute arbitrary commands at the highest levels of privilege typically reserved for administrators or system services. The absence of a need for user interaction further amplifies the risk profile. Many vulnerabilities require social engineering tactics such as tricking a user into clicking a malicious link or opening a compromised file, but this specific issue can be triggered automatically through network requests or automated processes. Consequently, an attacker could potentially exploit this flaw silently and undetected, making it suitable for worm-like propagation or targeted attacks against high-value infrastructure where minimizing detection is paramount.
The operational impact of such a vulnerability extends beyond immediate compromise to include potential data exfiltration, persistence mechanisms, and lateral movement within the network environment. Once remote code execution is achieved, an attacker can install backdoors, harvest sensitive credentials, modify system configurations, or deploy ransomware. The lack of user interaction requirement implies that automated scanning tools could rapidly identify vulnerable instances across a large infrastructure, leading to widespread compromise in short timeframes. This aligns with common exploitation patterns observed in the wild where memory corruption bugs are prioritized due to their high success rate and low barrier to entry for attackers possessing basic exploit development skills.
To mitigate this risk, immediate remediation efforts should focus on identifying all instances of use-after-free within the codebase through rigorous static analysis and dynamic testing techniques such as fuzzing with tools designed to detect memory safety violations like AddressSanitizer or Valgrind. Developers must ensure that pointers are set to null immediately after being freed and implement robust checks before any dereferencing operations occur. Additionally, adopting modern programming languages with automatic garbage collection or strong memory safety guarantees can prevent these classes of errors from occurring in the first place. For systems where legacy code cannot be rewritten, implementing compiler-based protections such as stack canaries, Data Execution Prevention (DEP), and Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR) can significantly raise the difficulty for successful exploitation by making it harder to predict memory layouts and execute injected shellcode. Regular security audits and adherence to secure coding standards like those outlined in CWE-416 will help prevent recurrence of this critical flaw.