CVE-2016-2487
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 · uneditedlibstagefright in mediaserver in Android 4.x before 4.4.4, 5.0.x before 5.0.2, 5.1.x before 5.1.1, and 6.x before 2016-06-01 allows attackers to gain privileges via a crafted application, as demonstrated by obtaining Signature or SignatureOrSystem access, aka internal bug 27833616.
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 · high confidencelibstagefright in Android's mediaserver contains a privilege escalation vulnerability that allows a crafted malicious application to obtain Signature or SignatureOrSystem access permissions, potentially enabling arbitrary code execution with elevated system 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= 4.0= 4.0.1= 4.0.2= 4.0.3= 4.0.4= 4.1= 4.1.1= 4.1.2= 4.2= 4.2.1= 4.2.2= 4.3CVSS 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 OS versionGo to Settings > About Phone (or About Device) > Android version. Alternatively, run `getprop ro.build.version.release` via ADB shell.Affected if The installed version is 4.0, 4.0.1, 4.0.2, 4.0.3, 4.0.4, 4.1, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, or 4.3
-
Verify security patch levelGo to Settings > About Phone > Security patch level. Alternatively, run `getprop ro.build.version.security_patch` via ADB shell.Affected if The security patch level is earlier than June 1, 2016, or the field is empty or missing (indicating no official patches applied)
-
Confirm mediaserver component existsCheck for the presence of the mediaserver binary at /system/bin/mediaserver or /vendor/bin/mediaserver using a file manager or via ADB with `ls -la /system/bin/mediaserver`.Affected if The mediaserver binary exists and the Android version is in the affected 4.0-4.3 range (vulnerability is in the libstagefright library used by this component)
-
Check app installation sourcesGo to Settings > Security (or Settings > Apps) > Unknown sources. Verify if installation of apps from unknown sources is enabled.Affected if Unknown sources is enabled and the device runs an affected Android version, as the exploit requires a malicious application to be installed on the device
A device is affected if it runs Android 4.0 through 4.3 and lacks the June 2016 security patch, especially if installation of apps from unknown sources is permitted.
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 Android security patches released on or after June 1, 2016 to all affected devices (4.4.4+, 5.0.2+, 5.1.1+, and 6.x); for unpatchable devices, consider retirement or network segmentation to limit exposure.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-2487 — 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-2016-2487 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