CVE-2021-0468
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 LK, there is a possible escalation of privilege due to an insecure default value. This could lead to local escalation of privilege for an attacker who has physical access to the device with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation.Product: AndroidVersions: Android SoCAndroid ID: A-180427272
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 confidenceIn LK (Little Kernel bootloader for Android SoCs), an insecure default value allows a physically present attacker to escalate privileges. With physical access and user interaction required, an attacker could potentially execute code at a higher privilege level than intended by bypassing normal boot chain security.
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 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
- Physical
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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 device's bootloaderCheck if the device uses LK (Little Kernel) as its bootloader by reviewing device documentation, bootloader logs during boot, or using fastboot/oem commands like 'fastboot getvar all'Affected if The device uses LK bootloader on an Android SoC and physical access is available to an attacker
-
Verify boot chain integrity mechanismsCheck if verified boot (dm-verity, AVB) is enabled by examining the bootloader lock status via 'fastboot oem device-info' or similar vendor-specific commandsAffected if Verified boot is disabled or in unlocked state, allowing tampered boot chain to execute
-
Confirm physical access controlsAssess whether the device allows unauthorized access to USB debugging, fastboot mode, or recovery mode without authenticationAffected if The device permits entry to developer/engineering modes without credentials or secure lock screen
-
Review LK bootloader version if accessibleIf the bootloader version is queryable via fastboot (e.g., 'fastboot getvar version' or 'fastboot getvar bootloader'), retrieve and document it for comparison against fixed releasesAffected if The bootloader version cannot be determined or is not documented as patched by the SoC vendor
A device is likely affected if it runs LK bootloader on Android SoCs with physical access exposure and has verified boot disabled or an unknown/unpatched bootloader version.
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 SoC vendor firmware update containing the LK bootloader patch. Until then, restrict physical access to devices and verify boot chain integrity on startup.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,160.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-0468 — 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-2021-0468 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