CVE-2016-6700
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 · uneditedAn elevation of privilege vulnerability in libzipfile in Android 4.x before 4.4.4, 5.0.x before 5.0.2, and 5.1.x before 5.1.1 could enable a local malicious application to execute arbitrary code within the context of a privileged process. This issue is rated as Critical due to the possibility of a local permanent device compromise, which may require reflashing the operating system to repair the device. Android ID: A-30916186.
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 confidenceElevation of privilege vulnerability in libzipfile allows a local malicious application to execute arbitrary code within a privileged process on Android devices. The vulnerability affects Android 4.x before 4.4.4, 5.0.x before 5.0.2, and 5.1.x before 5.1.1.
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= 4.1.2= 4.2= 4.2.1= 4.2.2= 4.3= 4.3.1CVSS 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
- 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, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if The version is 4.x before 4.4.4, 5.0.x before 5.0.2, or 5.1.x before 5.1.1
-
Verify libzipfile library presenceCheck for /system/lib/libzipfile.so via ADB shell with 'ls -la /system/lib/libzipfile.so' or 'find /system -name libzipfile.so'Affected if The library file exists on the device (it is present in Android 4.x-5.1.x versions)
-
Check for privileged zip-handling processesInspect running processes that handle zip files in privileged context using 'ps -A | grep -i zip' or examine package manager for system apps that parse zip archivesAffected if Any privileged system service or application that uses libzipfile to parse untrusted zip archives is running on the device
If the device runs Android version 4.x before 4.4.4, 5.0.x before 5.0.2, or 5.1.x before 5.1.1 AND contains the libzipfile library, the device is vulnerable to privilege escalation via malicious application interaction with zip-parsing components.
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 Android security patches/updates to reach versions 4.4.4, 5.0.2, 5.1.1 or later which contain the fix for this vulnerability.
- Consultation2.0 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 $2,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-6700 — 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-2016-6700 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