CVE-2009-0608
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedInteger overflow in the showLog function in fake_log_device.c in liblog in Open Handset Alliance Android 1.0 allows attackers to trigger a buffer overflow and possibly have unspecified other impact by sending a large number of input lines.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceInteger overflow in the showLog function in fake_log_device.c in liblog in Android 1.0 allows attackers to trigger a buffer overflow by sending a large number of input lines, potentially leading to arbitrary code execution or unspecified other impact. The vulnerability stems from improper integer handling when processing log input.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 1.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Complete
- Integrity
- Complete
- Availability
- Complete
AV:L/AC:L/Au:N/C:C/I:C/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the Android SDK versionCheck the SDK version installed in your environment by running 'android list targets' or checking the SDK manifest/build files for the version identifierAffected if The SDK version is exactly 1.0 (any other version is not affected)
-
Locate the liblog librarySearch for liblog or liblog.so in the SDK installation directory, typically under platform/android-1/ or similar pathsAffected if The liblog library exists in the SDK build (this component was included in Android 1.0 SDK)
-
Identify fake_log_device.c presenceExamine the liblog source code or compiled binary for the fake_log_device component; check if fake_log_device.c is part of the buildAffected if fake_log_device.c is present in the liblog build (this is the vulnerable component)
-
Verify showLog function is compiledCheck if the showLog function from fake_log_device.c is compiled into the final binary or library; use nm or objdump to inspect symbolsAffected if The showLog symbol exists in the binary (the vulnerable function is active)
You are affected only if you are using Android SDK exactly version 1.0 with the fake_log_device component and showLog function compiled into your build environment.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpdate to a patched Android version; if the fake_log_device component is only used in development/testing builds, ensure production builds exclude this component.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2009-0608 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2009-0608 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data