CVE-2019-2235
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 · uneditedBuffer overflow occurs when emulated RPMB is used due to sector size assumptions in the TA rollback protection logic. in Snapdragon Auto, Snapdragon Compute, Snapdragon Connectivity, Snapdragon Consumer Electronics Connectivity, Snapdragon Consumer IOT, Snapdragon Industrial IOT, Snapdragon Mobile, Snapdragon Voice & Music, Snapdragon Wired Infrastructure and Networking in MDM9206, MDM9607, MDM9650, MDM9655, MSM8996AU, QCS404, QCS605, Qualcomm 215, SD 410/12, SD 425, SD 427, SD 430, SD 435, SD 439 / SD 429, SD 450, SD 625, SD 632, SD 636, SD 712 / SD 710 / SD 670, SD 820, SD 820A, SD 835, SD 845 / SD 850, SD 8CX, SDA660, SDM439, SDM630, SDM660, Snapdragon_High_Med_2016, SXR1130
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 confidenceBuffer overflow vulnerability in emulated RPMB (Replay Protected Memory Block) storage due to incorrect sector size assumptions in the Trusted Application rollback protection logic. The flaw allows memory corruption in the secure domain when RPMB emulation processes operations with mismatched sector size parameters, potentially enabling privilege escalation or code execution in the Trusted Execution Environment.
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 versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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.
-
Identify the Qualcomm chipset modelCheck /proc/cpuinfo, /sys/devices/system/cpu/, or use 'lspci' (for embedded devices check /proc/device-tree/compatible or AT commands). Look for model identifiers: Mdm9206, Mdm9607, Mdm9650, Mdm9655, Msm8996au, Qcs404, Qcs605, or Qualcomm 215.Affected if The chipset matches any of the affected models listed in the CVE (Mdm9206, Mdm9607, Mdm9650, Mdm9655, Msm8996au, Qcs404, Qcs605, or Qualcomm 215).
-
Check the baseband or firmware versionQuery the baseband firmware version via AT command 'AT+CGMR' (for modems), check /sys/kernel/debug/version, or use manufacturer-provided tools. Compare against any available version information from the vendor.Affected if The device runs any firmware version on the affected Qualcomm chipsets - the CVE states all versions of the listed products are affected.
-
Verify RPMB emulation is in useCheck for RPMB device nodes (ls /dev/block/*rpmb* or ls /sys/class/mmc_host/), look for 'rpmb' in kernel config (/proc/config.gz), or check if emulated RPMB is exposed to the host system. The vulnerability triggers when RPMB emulation processes operations.Affected if RPMB emulation is enabled and the device uses the affected Qualcomm firmware - the flaw is in the RPMB emulation layer in the secure domain.
-
Confirm Trusted Execution Environment presenceCheck for TEE/TrustZone status: look for /dev/tee* devices, check /sys/class/misc/tee*, or use 'getprop' (Android) to query ro.hardware.gatekeeper or ro.hardware.trustonic. The vulnerability enables code execution in the TEE.Affected if The device implements TEE/TrustZone (standard on affected Qualcomm chipsets) and uses the vulnerable RPMB emulation in the secure domain.
If the device uses any of the listed Qualcomm chipset models (Mdm9206, Mdm9607, Mdm9650, Mdm9655, Msm8996au, Qcs404, Qcs605, or Qualcomm 215) with any firmware version and has RPMB emulation enabled, the environment is affected by this vulnerability.
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 Qualcomm firmware/hardware updates provided through device manufacturers. This is a low-level firmware vulnerability with no practical user-facing workarounds; affected devices require vendor-supplied patches.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $15,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2019-2235 — 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-2019-2235 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