CVE-2017-14908
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 for MSM, Firefox OS for MSM, QRD Android, with all Android releases from CAF using the Linux kernel, the SafeSwitch test application does not properly validate the number of blocks to verify.
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 validation vulnerability exists in the SafeSwitch test application within Android for MSM, Firefox OS for MSM, and QRD Android releases from CAF (Code Aurora Forum). The application fails to properly validate the number of blocks to verify, likely leading to an integer overflow or buffer boundary issue during block verification operations. Given the CVSS 9.8 critical rating, this is likely exploitable for remote code execution or privilege escalation.
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 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.
-
Check if SafeSwitch test application is installedList installed packages using 'pm list packages' or check /data/app/ and /system/app/ directories for packages containing 'safeswitch' in the nameAffected if The SafeSwitch test application package exists on the device
-
Verify the application is enabledCheck if the SafeSwitch test app can be launched or is listed as enabled using 'pm list packages -e' or through device settings under AppsAffected if The SafeSwitch test application is present and enabled on the device
-
Confirm device uses CAF-based MSM firmwareCheck build information via 'getprop' for CAF, QRD, or MSM-related build properties, or check if the device is based on Qualcomm MSM chipset with Code Aurora Forum releasesAffected if The device runs CAF/MSM-based Android firmware where this test application is included
A device is affected if the SafeSwitch test application from CAF is installed and enabled on a Qualcomm MSM-based Android device, since the vulnerability exists in this specific test component's block verification logic.
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-specific patches from the device OEM or CAF repository; if the SafeSwitch test application is not required in production builds, disable or remove it to eliminate the attack surface.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2017-14908 — 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-2017-14908 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