CVE-2020-11220
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 · uneditedWhile processing storage SCM commands there is a time of check or time of use window where a pointer used could be invalid at a specific time while executing the storage SCM call in Snapdragon Auto, Snapdragon Compute, Snapdragon Connectivity, Snapdragon Industrial IOT, Snapdragon Mobile, Snapdragon Wired Infrastructure and Networking
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 Time of Check to Time of Use (TOCTOU) vulnerability in Qualcomm Snapdragon chips where a pointer used during storage SCM (Secure Channel Manager) command processing can become invalid between the time it is checked and the time it is used, potentially leading to memory corruption.
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
- High
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:H/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 affected Qualcomm chips in environmentInventory all hardware components to determine if any of the following Qualcomm chip models are present: Aqt1000, Ar8035, Pm4125, Pm4250, Pm6125, Pm6150, Pm6150a, or Pm6150l. This may require checking hardware BOMs, device inventories, or system documentation.Affected if Any of the listed chip models (Aqt1000, Ar8035, Pm4125, Pm4250, Pm6125, Pm6150, Pm6150a, Pm6150l) are present in the environment
-
Check firmware version of identified chipsUse vendor-provided tools or diagnostic interfaces to query the firmware version of the identified Qualcomm chip(s). For embedded devices, this may involve accessing debug UART, JTAG, or manufacturer-specific firmware reading utilities.Affected if The firmware version matches any of the affected chip models listed in the CVE (all versions are affected)
-
Determine if storage SCM functionality is in useReview system configuration and active firmware modules to determine whether the Secure Channel Manager (SCM) storage command processing is enabled and actively handling storage commands.Affected if Storage SCM command processing is enabled and actively processing commands on the affected chip
Your environment is affected if it contains any of the listed Qualcomm chip models (Aqt1000, Ar8035, Pm4125, Pm4250, Pm6125, Pm6150, Pm6150a, Pm6150l) with firmware that supports storage SCM functionality.
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 vendor-supplied firmware/patch from Qualcomm for affected Snapdragon product lines; this is a low-level firmware issue requiring vendor update rather than application-level remediation.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $11,712.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-11220 — 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-2020-11220 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