CVE-2018-15542
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 issue was discovered in the org.telegram.messenger application 4.8.11 for Android. The Passcode feature allows authentication bypass via runtime manipulation that forces a certain method's return value to true. In other words, an attacker could authenticate with an arbitrary passcode. NOTE: the vendor indicates that this is not an attack of interest within the context of their threat model, which excludes Android devices on which rooting has occurred
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 confidenceThe Telegram Android app version 4.8.11 has a passcode bypass vulnerability where an attacker with root access or runtime manipulation tools (e.g., Frida) can force a specific method to return 'true', bypassing the passcode authentication entirely. This is a client-side security control that can be circumvented through runtime patching.
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= 4.8.11CVSS 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
- Physical
- Complexity
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:P/AC:H/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 Telegram Android app versionOpen Android Settings > Apps > Telegram, or run 'adb shell dumpsys package org.telegram.messenger | grep versionName' to see the installed versionAffected if The version displayed is exactly 4.8.11
-
Verify passcode protection is enabledOpen Telegram app, go to Settings > Privacy and Security > Passcode Lock, and confirm the passcode lock toggle is turned ONAffected if Passcode lock is enabled in the app settings
-
Confirm device root statusRun 'adb shell su -c id' or use a root checker app to determine if the device has root access grantedAffected if The device has root (superuser) access available
-
Check for runtime instrumentation toolsLook for installed apps like Frida Server, or run 'adb shell ps -A | grep frida' to check for Frida processes, and scan for suspicious shared libraries in /data/data/org.telegram.messenger/Affected if Frida or similar runtime manipulation tools are present on the device
You are affected if Telegram version 4.8.11 is installed AND passcode lock is enabled on a rooted device or one with runtime instrumentation tools present, allowing an attacker to bypass the passcode through runtime patching.
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 dataSince the vendor considers this out of scope for non-rooted devices, the recommended remediation is to implement server-side session validation and use hardware-backed authentication mechanisms (e.g., Android Keystore) that cannot be bypassed through runtime manipulation, rather than relying solely on client-side passcode checks.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation32.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,744.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-15542 — 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-2018-15542 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