AN1832: Analytic 1832
Application vetting services could look for usage of the `READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE` Android permission. This could indicate that non-system apps are attempting to access information that they do not have access to.
Analyst context for executives and security teams
This analytic is about mobile application vetting: checking whether an app requests the `READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE` permission, which the official description says could indicate a non-system app trying to access information it should not be able to access. For leaders, the value is not a standalone alert; it is a control-validation question: does the organization review mobile apps before approval or deployment, and can it prove that privileged permission requests are identified and acted on?
Executive priority
Treat this as a mobile application governance and compliance evidence issue. If employees or managed devices can install unvetted apps, privileged permission requests may escape review. Security leaders should confirm who owns mobile app approval, what evidence is retained from app vetting, and how exceptions are handled. The supplied ATT&CK data is sparse and internally inconsistent on platform context, so this should drive validation of mobile vetting processes rather than immediate assumptions about exposure.
Technical view
The analytic is a detection analytic in the mobile ATT&CK domain with platform listed as iOS, but its official description references the Android `READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE` permission. SOC, mobile security, and detection engineering teams should not operationalize this blindly; first validate the platform mapping and whether the organization performs static app analysis or app vetting capable of identifying privileged permission usage. If relevant to local mobile controls, review non-system apps requesting this permission and correlate with app source, signing status, deployment path, device management state, and approved business use.
Likely telemetry
- Mobile application vetting or static analysis results
- Application permission declarations identified during app review
- Managed mobile app inventory from MDM or enterprise mobility tooling
- Enterprise app store or app approval workflow records
- Application signing, source, and distribution metadata
Detection direction
- Validate the apparent platform mismatch before creating production detections: the platform field is iOS, while the described permission is Android-specific.
- If the permission is relevant in the local environment, tune review logic to distinguish system apps from non-system apps, since the official description specifically calls out non-system apps attempting access.
- Use this as a pre-deployment or app-vetting analytic rather than assuming endpoint runtime detection, because no official detection logic is provided.
- Reduce false positives by correlating permission usage with approved system status, enterprise approval records, app provenance, and documented business justification.
- Confirm whether SOC workflows receive app-vetting findings; otherwise the analytic may exist in a governance process but never reach responders or risk owners.
Mitigation priorities
- Establish or validate a mobile application vetting process for apps before enterprise approval or deployment.
- Require review of privileged or sensitive permission requests, including documented business justification and ownership.
- Maintain an approved mobile app inventory and exception process so reviewers can distinguish authorized apps from unapproved or anomalous submissions.
- Ensure MDM or enterprise mobility controls enforce approved-app policies where applicable.
- Retain vetting evidence for audit, compliance readiness, and incident response context.
Analyst notes and limits
No relationships, tactics, or official detection details were supplied. The most important analytic note is the inconsistency between the listed platform, iOS, and the official description, which references an Android permission. Glexia would treat this as a prompt to validate ATT&CK mapping and local mobile governance coverage before building detections or reporting risk.
This take is based only on the supplied STIX fields and external reference. It does not establish active exploitation, adversary attribution, business impact, or detection coverage. Local platform scope, app-vetting capabilities, mobile device management controls, and app approval evidence are required to determine operational relevance.
Analytic 1832
Application vetting services could look for usage of the `READ_PRIVILEGED_PHONE_STATE` Android permission. This could indicate that non-system apps are attempting to access information that they do not have access to.
How security teams should use this page
Treat this object as behavior context, not an attribution claim. Validate the related groups, software, data sources, and mitigations against official ATT&CK relationships and your own telemetry before making control-coverage decisions.
All related ATT&CK context
No relationships are available in the current normalized data for this object.
Object version and sync metadata
The fields below describe the current mirrored snapshot. When Glexia retains multiple ATT&CK source imports, you can open the table to compare the same object across releases (hashes and MITRE timestamps). For MITRE’s own release notes and roadmap, see ATT&CK resources — Updates .
Imported snapshots across ATT&CK releases (1)
| Release | Bundle imported | Object version | Modified | Status | Raw hash |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19.1 | 1.0 | Current bundle | 855f62092f33… |
Mirrored ATT&CK source object
The raw object is retained through the mirrored ATT&CK source bundle and object hash. The raw endpoint returns the exact object from the mirrored bundle when available.
External references and citations
MITRE external references are preserved separately from Glexia analysis so citations remain traceable to their original source records.
-
[1]
mitre-attack AN1832Open source URL
Source: MITRE ATT&CK®. © 2026 The MITRE Corporation. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of The MITRE Corporation. MITRE ATT&CK and ATT&CK are registered trademarks of The MITRE Corporation. Glexia is not affiliated with or endorsed by MITRE.