CVE-2015-0949
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 · uneditedThe System Management Mode (SMM) implementation in Dell Latitude E6430 BIOS Revision A09, HP EliteBook 850 G1 BIOS revision L71 Ver. 01.09, and possibly other BIOS implementations does not ensure that function calls operate on SMRAM memory locations, which allows local users to bypass the Secure Boot protection mechanism and gain privileges by leveraging write access to physical memory.
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 confidenceThe SMM (System Management Mode) implementation in affected BIOS versions (Dell Latitude E6430 A09, HP EliteBook 850 G1 L71) fails to validate that function calls target only SMRAM memory locations. This allows a local attacker with physical memory write access to inject arbitrary code into SMM, bypassing Secure Boot protection and escalating privileges.
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= a09= 01.09CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Identify system modelRun system information command (such as 'systeminfo' on Windows, 'dmidecode -s system-product-name' on Linux, or check system BIOS/UEFI setup) to determine if the hardware is a Dell Latitude E6430 or HP EliteBook 850 G1Affected if System model matches Dell Latitude E6430 or HP EliteBook 850 G1
-
Check Dell BIOS versionOn Dell systems, use 'dellbiosver' utility, check BIOS setup screen, or read from 'dmidecode -s bios-version' on Linux. Compare the installed version to 'a09'Affected if Dell Latitude E6430 with firmware version exactly a09 is installed
-
Check HP BIOS versionOn HP systems, use 'hpBiosVer' utility, check BIOS setup screen, or read from 'dmidecode -s bios-version' on Linux. Compare the installed version to '01.09'Affected if HP EliteBook 850 G1 with firmware version exactly 01.09 is installed
-
Verify SMRAM accessibilityThis vulnerability requires an attacker with physical memory write access to SMRAM. Confirm system threat model includes physical access by untrusted individualsAffected if Affected firmware version is installed AND attacker has physical memory write access to the system
User is affected if they run a Dell Latitude E6430 with firmware a09 or HP EliteBook 850 G1 with firmware 01.09, and an attacker can gain physical memory write access to the system.
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 vendor-supplied BIOS/firmware updates to address the SMRAM validation flaw. No software-only workaround exists for this class of firmware vulnerability; physical security and restricting access to systems with this hardware is advised until patches are deployed.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $4,544.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-0949 — 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-2015-0949 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