CVE-2026-58984 in Android
Summary
by MITRE • 11/02/2026
In multiple locations, there is a possible memory corruption due to a use-after-free. This could lead to local escalation of privilege 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 • 11/02/2026
The vulnerability described constitutes a critical security flaw characterized by a use-after-free condition within the software's memory management subsystem. A use-after-free error occurs when an application continues to reference a pointer after the memory it points to has been deallocated or freed. In this specific instance, the defect is present in multiple locations throughout the codebase, suggesting that the issue may stem from systemic architectural weaknesses rather than isolated coding errors. When the program attempts to access the previously allocated memory region, it interacts with data that no longer belongs to the application's controlled scope. This interaction can result in undefined behavior, ranging from minor data corruption to severe system instability or complete compromise of the software's integrity. The presence of this flaw across multiple code paths indicates a lack of rigorous lifecycle management for dynamic memory allocations, where references are not properly invalidated after deallocation or where reference counting mechanisms fail to track object usage accurately.
From an operational perspective, the primary consequence of exploiting this vulnerability is local privilege escalation. Because the use-after-free condition allows an attacker to manipulate how the system interprets freed memory blocks, it can be leveraged to overwrite critical data structures such as function pointers, virtual table pointers, or security tokens. By carefully crafting input that triggers the deallocation and subsequent access sequence, a malicious actor can redirect execution flow or modify kernel-level privileges without possessing administrative rights initially. The severity of this impact is significantly amplified by the fact that no additional execution privileges are required for exploitation. This means that even users with minimal permissions on the system can potentially trigger the vulnerability through standard interactions with the affected application components. Furthermore, user interaction is not needed to exploit the flaw, which implies that if the vulnerable component runs in a context accessible via network services or background processes, remote attackers could also leverage this issue without any direct engagement from legitimate users.
This type of memory corruption aligns closely with Common Weakness Enumeration identifier CWE-416, Use After Free, and is frequently associated with CWE-787, Out-of-bounds Write, depending on the specific mechanism used to exploit the dangling pointer. In terms of adversarial tactics, this vulnerability facilitates techniques categorized under MITRE ATT&CK as Process Injection or Arbitrary Code Execution, allowing attackers to establish persistence or move laterally within a compromised environment. The absence of user interaction and low privilege requirements places this flaw in the highest risk category for local exploitation scenarios. Attackers can automate the exploitation process using scripts that repeatedly trigger the memory corruption until successful control over execution is achieved, making it particularly dangerous in multi-user environments or server deployments where such interactions might occur frequently through automated services.
Mitigation strategies must focus on both immediate patching and long-term architectural improvements. The most effective remediation involves updating to a version of the software that includes patches addressing these specific memory management flaws. Developers should implement strict pointer invalidation practices, ensuring that pointers are set to null immediately after their associated memory is freed. Additionally, adopting modern programming languages with automatic garbage collection or using static analysis tools during the development lifecycle can help detect such issues before deployment. For systems where immediate patching is not feasible, deploying runtime application self-protection mechanisms or memory corruption mitigations like Address Space Layout Randomization and Data Execution Prevention can reduce the likelihood of successful exploitation by making it harder for attackers to predict memory layouts and execute injected code. Regular security audits focusing on dynamic memory allocation patterns are also recommended to identify similar vulnerabilities across other components of the system.