NVD や CVE、ほか複数の脅威フィードを束ね、RCE など高リスクな事象を深く追える一覧です。CVSS と EPSS を組み合わせ、Exploit 参照や PoC の有無から悪用しやすさを追跡します。ベンダー修正や緩和策の文脈とあわせて優先度を決め、対応サイクルを短く保ちつつ重要資産を守る支援をします。
Assigner（CNA／発行元）：[email protected] この条件を外す
| CVE | 説明 | CVSS 最大値 | EPSS（%） | 公開 | 更新 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2026-28573 | In AndroidManifest.xml, there is a possible persistent denial of service due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 10.0 | 0.15% | 2026-06-18 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-28615 | In Telecomm, there is a possible way to initiate an unauthorized phone call due to a permissions bypass. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 10.0 | 0.15% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-0092 | In Package Manager, there is a possible device lock controller bypass due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 10.0 | 0.24% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-0083 | In Nfc::eventCallback() of Nfc.h, there is a possible use after free due to a race condition. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 10.0 | 0.12% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-0082 | In tryStartActivity of NfcDispatcher.java, there is a possible automatic special app access permission assignment due to an insecure default value. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 10.0 | 0.24% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-0081 | In NFC, there is a possible way to spoof an NFC event due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 10.0 | 0.15% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-0071 | In SettingsLib, there is a possible missing permission check due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 10.0 | 0.24% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-0068 | In createSessionInternal of PackageInstallerService.java, there is a possible method to remove a DPC app from a managed device without DO consent due to desync from persistence. This could lead to local escalation of privilege if a user can install a malicious app with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. | 10.0 | 0.12% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-0063 | In setAllowedCarriers of PhoneInterfaceManager.java, there is a possible way to disable carrier restrictions due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 10.0 | 0.24% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-0019 | In SettingsLib, there is a possible way to disable system components due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 7.8 | 0.13% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2025-48643 | In multiple locations there is a possible provisioning bypass 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. | 7.8 | 0.13% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2025-48640 | In multiple locations, there is a possible 3rd party passkey entry pairing approval due to a missing permission check. This could lead to remote (proximal/adjacent) escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 8.0 | 0.13% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2025-48617 | In overrideConfig of CarrierConfigLoader.java, there is a possible way to bypass UID check due to a permissions bypass. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 7.8 | 0.13% | 2026-06-17 | 2026-06-18 |
| CVE-2026-28580 | In multiple functions, there is a possible desync in persistence due to an incorrect bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 7.8 | 0.07% | 2026-06-01 | 2026-06-03 |
| CVE-2026-28577 | 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. | 7.8 | 0.07% | 2026-06-01 | 2026-06-03 |
| CVE-2026-0100 | In Load of LoadedArsc.cpp, there is a possible out of bounds write due to a heap buffer overflow. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 7.8 | 0.07% | 2026-06-01 | 2026-06-03 |
| CVE-2026-0099 | In onNullBinding of HostEmulationManager.java, there is a possible way to launch an activity from the background due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. | 7.8 | 0.07% | 2026-06-01 | 2026-06-03 |
| CVE-2026-0098 | In getCallingPackageName of Shared.java, there is a possible way to bypass activity start restrictions due to a confused deputy. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 7.8 | 0.07% | 2026-06-01 | 2026-06-03 |
| CVE-2026-0097 | In multiple locations, there is a possible way to bypass user interaction when pairing an LE device due to a logic error. This could lead to remote (proximal/adjacent) escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 8.0 | 0.12% | 2026-06-01 | 2026-06-03 |
| CVE-2026-0096 | In getAppLabel of ForgetDeviceDialogFragment.java, there is a possible trick the user into forgetting a device due to misleading or insufficient UI. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. | 7.8 | 0.07% | 2026-06-01 | 2026-06-03 |