CVE-2021-1979
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 · uneditedPossible buffer overflow due to improper validation of FTM command payload 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 confidenceA buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the FTM (Factory Test Mode) command payload validation within Qualcomm Snapdragon chipsets. The improper validation of input data allows an attacker to overflow buffer boundaries, potentially leading to code execution or denial of service. This affects multiple Snapdragon product lines including Auto, Compute, Connectivity, Consumer IOT, Industrial IOT, and Mobile variants.
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
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 the Qualcomm firmware or chipset modelQuery the device's system information, firmware version strings, or boot logs to determine the exact Qualcomm chipset or firmware identifier. This may be accessible through diagnostic tools, /proc files, or device documentation.Affected if The firmware or chipset matches any of the following: Aqt1000, Ar8035, Csrb31024, Fsm10055, Fsm10056, Mdm9150, Mdm9250, or Mdm9650
-
Locate FTM configuration or statusExamine the device's configuration files, boot parameters, or diagnostic interfaces that control or report the status of Factory Test Mode. Look for settings related to FTM, test mode, or manufacturing mode.Affected if FTM or Factory Test Mode is enabled, accessible, or left in a default active state on the device
-
Identify exposed FTM command interfacesInspect available diagnostic ports, USB interfaces, serial consoles, or network services that may expose FTM command processing. Check for any test or manufacturing interfaces that accept command payloads.Affected if An interface that processes FTM commands is exposed or accessible (for example, through debug ports, diagnostic USB modes, or test APIs)
The device is affected if it runs any of the listed Qualcomm firmware variants and has FTM functionality enabled or its command interface accessible, as the buffer overflow requires FTM to be active for exploitation.
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 vendor-supplied firmware/security patch updates from Qualcomm and device manufacturers. Disable or restrict FTM functionality when not required for manufacturing, as this reduces the attack surface.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation40.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA16.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $24,448.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-1979 — 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-2021-1979 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