CVE-2021-22494
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in the fingerprint scanner on Samsung Note20 mobile devices with Q(10.0) software. When a screen protector is used, the required image compensation is not present. Consequently, inversion can occur during fingerprint enrollment, and a high False Recognition Rate (FRR) can occur. The Samsung ID is SVE-2020-19216 (January 2021).
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 confidenceOn Samsung Note20 devices running Android Q (10.0), the fingerprint scanner fails to apply proper image compensation when a screen protector is present. This causes image inversion during fingerprint enrollment, leading to a high False Rejection Rate (FRR) where legitimate users may be unable to authenticate using their enrolled fingerprint.
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= 10.0CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Confirm device model is Samsung Note20Go to Settings > About Phone > Model Number, or run 'getprop ro.product.model' via ADB shellAffected if Model number is SM-N980 or SM-N981 (Note20 4G/5G variants)
-
Verify Android version is 10.0Go to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if Android version displays exactly 10.0 or build.version.release equals 10
-
Confirm fingerprint enrollment existsGo to Settings > Biometrics and security > Fingerprints, or check /data/system/fingerprint/ directory existsAffected if Fingerprints have been enrolled on the device
-
Check for screen protector presenceInspect device display for visible screen protector layer, or inquire user if a screen protector was applied around enrollment timeAffected if A screen protector was installed during or after fingerprint enrollment
-
Test fingerprint authentication failure rateAttempt fingerprint unlock multiple times (5-10 attempts), recording success vs failure outcomesAffected if Multiple authentication failures occur despite using correct enrolled finger, indicating elevated FRR
Device is affected if it is a Samsung Note20 running Android 10.0 with enrolled fingerprints and a screen protector is present, resulting in elevated authentication failures.
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-provided security patches from Samsung that address the fingerprint image compensation algorithm. Users should re-enroll their fingerprints after applying a screen protector or updating the device firmware.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-22494 — 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-2021-22494 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