CVE-2020-0392
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 getLayerDebugInfo of SurfaceFlinger.cpp, there is a possible code execution due to a double free. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.Product: AndroidVersions: Android-9 Android-10 Android-11Android ID: A-150226608
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 confidenceA double-free vulnerability exists in the getLayerDebugInfo function of SurfaceFlinger.cpp (Android's graphics compositing service). When memory is freed twice, it can corrupt the heap and potentially enable code execution. As SurfaceFlinger runs with elevated privileges, successful exploitation allows local privilege escalation without additional user rights.
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= 9.0= 10.0CVSS 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:3.1/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 Android versionCheck the device or build's Android version (Settings > About Phone > Android version) or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADBAffected if Version is 9.0 or 10.0 specifically
-
Check the Android security patch levelRun 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' via ADB or check Settings > About Phone > Security patch levelAffected if The security patch level is earlier than the fix release for this CVE (the exact date varies by device/carrier)
-
Verify SurfaceFlinger service statusRun 'adb shell service list | grep surfaceflinger' or check if the service is accessible via 'adb shell dumpsys surfaceflinger'Affected if SurfaceFlinger is running (which it normally is on affected Android versions)
-
Confirm the vulnerability trigger conditionThe vulnerability is in the getLayerDebugInfo function. This function is invoked when debug info for layers is requested. There is no simple on/off toggle - the flaw exists if the version is affected.Affected if Running Android 9.0 or 10.0 without the corresponding security patch
A device is affected if it runs Android 9.0 or 10.0 and has not received the Android security patch that addresses this CVE in SurfaceFlinger.
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 the Android security patch level that addresses this vulnerability. For custom ROMs or AOSP-based builds, patch the getLayerDebugInfo function in SurfaceFlinger.cpp to prevent double-free of the layer debug info structure.
- 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-2020-0392 — 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-2020-0392 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