CVE-2016-2419
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 · uneditedmedia/libmedia/IDrm.cpp in mediaserver in Android 6.x before 2016-04-01 does not initialize a certain key-request data structure, which allows attackers to obtain sensitive information from process memory, and consequently bypass an unspecified protection mechanism, via unspecified vectors, as demonstrated by obtaining Signature or SignatureOrSystem access, aka internal bug 26323455.
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 confidenceThis is an information disclosure vulnerability in Android's mediaserver component where the IDrm.cpp file fails to initialize a data structure used for DRM key requests. The uninitialized memory contents leak sensitive information from process memory, potentially allowing attackers to bypass security protections and obtain Signature or SignatureOrSystem access 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= 6.0= 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
- 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.
-
Check Android OS versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if Version is 6.0 or 6.0.1 exactly
-
Verify mediaserver component is accessibleCheck if /system/bin/mediaserver exists and is executable on the deviceAffected if mediaserver binary is present and accessible to the app context
-
Confirm DRM functionality is in useInspect running processes for mediaserver: run 'ps -A | grep mediaserver' via ADB shellAffected if mediaserver process is running and handling DRM operations
A device is affected only if it runs Android version 6.0 or 6.0.1 and uses the mediaserver component for DRM key requests.
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 · scopedApply the Android security patch released April 2016 or later, which contains the fix for this vulnerability in the mediaserver component. Organizations should ensure mobile device management (MDM) policies enforce timely system updates.
Android 6.0.1 with April 2016 security patch level or later (or migrate to a later Android version if supported by the device)
- Check the current Android security patch level on the device under Settings > About Phone > Android security patch level
- If the device is on Android 6.0 or 6.0.1 and the security patch level is earlier than April 2016, apply the system update containing the April 2016 security patch
- If no update is available from the device manufacturer, consider upgrading to a later Android version if the device hardware supports it
- Verify after update that the security patch level shows April 2016 or later
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing16.0 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 $10,368.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-2419 — 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-2016-2419 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