CVE-2020-11218
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 · uneditedDenial of service in baseband when NW configures LTE betaOffset-RI-Index due to lack of data validation in Snapdragon Auto, Snapdragon Compute, Snapdragon Connectivity, Snapdragon Consumer IOT, Snapdragon Industrial IOT, Snapdragon Mobile
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 confidenceThe baseband processor in Qualcomm Snapdragon chipsets lacks proper input validation for the LTE betaOffset-RI-Index parameter when sent by the network (NW). A malformed or malicious network configuration can cause the baseband to crash or become unstable, resulting in denial of service.
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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 device chipset modelCheck the device specifications or system information to determine the Qualcomm Snapdragon or baseband chipset model (e.g., Apq8017, Msm8917, etc.)Affected if The chipset is one of: Apq8017, Apq8053, Aqt1000, Ar8035, Csrb31024, Fsm10055, Msm8917, or Msm8920
-
Confirm baseband processor usageVerify the device uses a baseband processor for LTE/cellular communication (most smartphones and cellular-enabled devices do)Affected if The device has cellular/LTE capability and uses a Qualcomm baseband processor
-
Check baseband firmware versionAccess baseband firmware version through device engineering mode, *#06# display, or device diagnostics (available methods vary by device manufacturer)Affected if The baseband firmware version corresponds to any version of the affected chipsets (all versions of listed chipsets are affected)
-
Monitor for unexplained baseband crashesObserve device for sudden cellular service loss, baseband processor crashes, or 'modem' restart events that occur without obvious causeAffected if Device experiences unexplained baseband instability or frequent loss of cellular service
A user is affected if their device contains one of the listed Qualcomm chipsets (Apq8017, Apq8053, Aqt1000, Ar8035, Csrb31024, Fsm10055, Msm8917, Msm8920) with any firmware version, since all versions of these chipsets lack proper validation for the LTE betaOffset-RI-Index parameter.
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 dataThis requires a firmware update from Qualcomm to add proper validation for the betaOffset-RI-Index parameter in the baseband processor. Users should apply carrier/manufacturer firmware updates when available.
- Consultation12.0 h
- Implementation60.0 h
- Testing100.0 h
- Review / QA40.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $56,640.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-11218 — 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-2020-11218 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