CVE-2021-0901
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 apusys, there is a possible memory corruption due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS05672107; Issue ID: ALPS05664618.
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 missing bounds check in the apusys (APU system) component allows memory corruption, potentially enabling local privilege escalation from System execution privileges. The vulnerability requires no user interaction and affects a system-level service in MediaTek/ALPS-based Android devices.
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= 10.0= 11.0= 12.0CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/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.
-
Verify Android versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version or run 'getprop ro.build.version.sdk' via ADB shellAffected if Version is 10, 11, or 12 (SDK 29, 30, or 31)
-
Identify chipset vendorCheck Settings > About Phone > SoC or processor info, or run 'getprop ro.hardware' or 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' via ADB shellAffected if Device uses a MediaTek chipset (ALPS-based system)
-
Confirm apusys component presenceRun 'ls -la /vendor/bin/apusys*' or 'find /vendor -name *apusys*' via ADB shell to locate apusys binaries or servicesAffected if apusys binary or service exists on the device
-
Check system security patch levelRun 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' via ADB shell to see installed security patch dateAffected if Patch level is earlier than the vendor fix date for ALPS05672107 (contact device vendor for specific date)
A device is affected if it runs Android 10/11/12 on a MediaTek/ALPS-based chipset and has the apusys component present, with a security patch level predating the fix.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply vendor patch ALPS05672107 which adds the missing bounds check to prevent memory corruption in apusys. This is a firmware-level fix requiring system image update.
- Check your Android device's current Security Patch Level by going to Settings > About Phone > Android Security Patch Level
- Contact your device OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) to confirm if the patch ALPS05672107 has been incorporated into their latest security update
- Apply the latest Android security update available for your device model when it becomes available
- If your device OEM has discontinued support, consider migrating to a device model that receives active security updates
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-0901 — 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-2021-0901 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