CVE-2014-9792
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 · uneditedarch/arm/mach-msm/ipc_router.c in the Qualcomm components in Android before 2016-07-05 on Nexus 5 devices uses an incorrect integer data type, which allows attackers to gain privileges via a crafted application, aka Android internal bug 28769399 and Qualcomm internal bug CR550606.
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 · moderate confidenceA privilege escalation vulnerability exists in the Qualcomm IPC Router component (arch/arm/mach-msm/ipc_router.c) in Android before the July 2016 security patch on Nexus 5 devices. The vulnerability stems from an incorrect integer data type being used in the code, which can be exploited by a malicious application to gain elevated privileges. This is a local privilege escalation bug requiring a crafted application to be installed on the device.
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<= 6.0.1CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
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.
-
Check Android versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADBAffected if Version is 6.0.1 or lower; versions above 6.0.1 are not affected
-
Verify device modelGo to Settings > About Phone > Model number, or run 'getprop ro.product.model' via ADBAffected if Device is Nexus 5 (hammerhead); other models may have different patch timelines
-
Confirm July 2016 security patch appliedGo to Settings > About Phone > Security patch level, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' via ADBAffected if Patch level is blank, earlier than '2016-07-01', or the property is missing; a patch level of July 2016 or later means the fix is present
The device is affected if it runs Android 6.0.1 or lower, is a Nexus 5, and lacks the July 2016 security patch level.
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 dataApply the July 2016 Android security patch or later, which contains the corrected integer data type in the ipc_router.c file. For embedded Android deployments, backport the specific fix from the upstream Qualcomm kernel patches addressing CR550606.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2014-9792 — 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-2014-9792 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