CVE-2015-9209
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 · uneditedIn Android before 2018-04-05 or earlier security patch level on Qualcomm Snapdragon Mobile and Snapdragon Wear MDM9206, MDM9607, MDM9615, MDM9625, MDM9635M, MDM9640, MDM9645, MDM9650, MDM9655, MSM8909W, SD 210/SD 212/SD 205, SD 400, SD 410/12, SD 425, SD 430, SD 450, SD 600, SD 615/16/SD 415, SD 617, SD 625, SD 650/52, SD 800, SD 808, SD 810, SD 820, SD 835, SD 845, SD 850, and SDX20, there is improper access control in a file storage API.
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 confidenceVulnerability in Qualcomm Snapdragon processors where a file storage API lacks proper access control enforcement, potentially allowing unauthorized access to files or data. The improper access control in the storage API could permit a malicious application or process to bypass normal permission boundaries.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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 the processor modelCheck the device specifications or use commands like 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' or check 'AT+CGMM' via modem AT interface to identify if the device uses Qualcomm MDM9206, MDM9607, MDM9615, MDM9635M, MDM9640, MDM9645, MDM9650, or MDM9655 modem chipsAffected if The device contains any of the listed Qualcomm MDM chip variants
-
Check the baseband/modem firmware versionQuery the modem firmware version using AT commands such as 'AT+CGMR' or through Android system properties with 'getprop' for 'gsm.version.baseband' or similar modem-related propertiesAffected if Firmware version cannot be determined or shows as unpatched build
-
Verify Android security patch levelCheck the Android security patch level via 'Settings > About Phone > Security patch level' or by running 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' in ADB shellAffected if The security patch level is earlier than 2018-04-05 or cannot be verified
-
Confirm storage API access control behaviorAttempt to verify if the file storage API enforces proper access controls - this typically requires access to the modem firmware debugging or reviewing OEM documentation about the specific firmware buildAffected if OEM documentation or firmware analysis shows no access control enforcement in the storage API
A device is affected if it contains any of the listed Qualcomm MDM chip variants and has an Android security patch level earlier than 2018-04-05, or if the firmware version cannot be confirmed as patched by the OEM
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.
dbcve · scopedUpdate affected devices to Android security patch level 2018-04-05 or later, or obtain OEM-provided firmware updates that include the fix for this access control issue.
Android security patch level 2018-04-05 or later (or a later Android version that includes this security patch)
- Identify the current Android security patch level on the affected device
- Upgrade the Android security patch level to 2018-04-05 or later to obtain the fix for this improper access control vulnerability
- For embedded MDM9206, MDM9607, MDM9615, MDM9635M, MDM9640, MDM9645, MDM9650, and MDM9655 modules, contact the device/firmware manufacturer to obtain a firmware update that includes the April 2018 or later Android security patch
- After applying the update, verify the security patch level reflects April 2018 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,200.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2015-9209 — 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-2015-9209 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