CVE-2020-9258
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 · uneditedHUAWEI P30 smartphone with versions earlier than 10.1.0.135(C00E135R2P11) have an improper input verification vulnerability. An attribution in a module is not set correctly and some verification is lacked. Attackers with local access can exploit this vulnerability by injecting malicious fragment. This may lead to user information leak.
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 confidenceImproper input verification vulnerability in Huawei P30 smartphones. An attribute in a module is incorrectly set without proper validation, allowing a local attacker to inject malicious fragments and potentially leak user information.
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< 10.1.0.135\(c00e135r2p11\)CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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.
-
Verify device model is Huawei P30Go to Settings > About Phone > Model Number and confirm the device is specifically Huawei P30Affected if Device model is not Huawei P30 (other models are not affected by this specific CVE)
-
Locate firmware version informationNavigate to Settings > About Phone on the Huawei P30 deviceAffected if Unable to access firmware version information
-
Identify the build number and versionIn Settings > About Phone, record the Build Number and Software Version displayedAffected if Version information cannot be retrieved from the device
-
Compare against affected versionCompare the installed firmware version to 10.1.0.135(C00E135R2P11) - check if the version is lower than this buildAffected if Firmware version is < 10.1.0.135(C00E135R2P11) - the device is affected by the vulnerability
A Huawei P30 is affected if its firmware version is lower than 10.1.0.135(C00E135R2P11).
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 data10.1.0.135
Update Huawei P30 devices to version 10.1.0.135(C00E135R2P11) or later. For enterprise environments, deploy firmware updates through mobile device management (MDM) systems and verify complete fleet coverage.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,560.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-9258 — 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-2020-9258 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