CVE-2015-3844
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 getProcessRecordLocked method in services/core/java/com/android/server/am/ActivityManagerService.java in ActivityManager in Android before 5.1.1 LMY48I allows attackers to trigger incorrect process loading via a crafted application, as demonstrated by interfering with use of the Settings application, aka internal bug 21669445.
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 vulnerability in Android's ActivityManagerService getProcessRecordLocked method allows a malicious application to manipulate process loading, potentially causing incorrect process state and interfering with system applications like Settings. The issue exists in Android versions before 5.1.1 LMY48I.
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<= 5.1CVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- M
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- Partial
- Integrity
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:P
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 version numberNavigate to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or execute 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if Version displays 5.1 or lower (such as 5.0, 4.4, 4.3, etc.)
-
Verify build IDCheck Settings > About Phone > Build number, or run 'getprop ro.build.id' via ADBAffected if Build ID is LMY47V, LMY47D, LMY47I, or any build identifier earlier than LMY48I (5.1.1)
-
Confirm no partial OTA update appliedCheck Settings > About Phone > Build number - if it shows 5.1.1 but is not exactly LMY48I, verify via 'getprop ro.build.version.incremental'Affected if Build shows 5.1.1 but is a variant other than LMY48I (the fix was specific to LMY48I)
The device is affected if it runs Android 5.1 or any 5.1.1 build other than LMY48I, as the vulnerability exists in the ActivityManagerService getProcessRecordLocked method in those versions.
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 Android 5.1.1 LMY48I or later, as this is a platform-level vulnerability requiring a system update; there are no effective user-side workarounds.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-3844 — 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-2015-3844 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