CVE-2022-20063
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 atf (spm), there is a possible out of bounds write due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS06171715; Issue ID: ALPS06171715.
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 confidenceAn out-of-bounds write vulnerability exists in the ATF (Advanced Trusted Execution Framework) / SPM (Secure Partitions Manager) component due to a missing bounds check. This could allow local privilege escalation, but exploitation requires user interaction and system-level execution privileges.
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= 9.0= 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
- High
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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.
-
Check Android versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADBAffected if Version is exactly 9.0 or 10.0 (not higher)
-
Check security patch levelGo to Settings > About Phone > Security patch level, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' via ADBAffected if Security patch level is earlier than the vendor release containing ALPS06171715, or shows unknown/blank for this specific patch
-
Check device build fingerprintRun 'getprop ro.build.fingerprint' via ADB to see the full build identifier including manufacturer patch dateAffected if The fingerprint does not include the ALPS06171715 patch identifier or shows a date prior to the vendor patch release
User is affected if running Android 9.0 or 10.0 and the device firmware has not received the vendor-specific patch ALPS06171715, as this is a trusted firmware component not directly inspectable by users.
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 ALPS06171715 through firmware/OTA update from the device manufacturer; this is a trusted firmware component requiring official patch deployment.
Latest Android security patch level (2022 or later) from device OEM that includes MediaTek patch ALPS06171715
- 1. Identify the device model and confirm it uses a MediaTek chipset.
- 2. Contact the device manufacturer or check their support website for available security updates.
- 3. Apply the latest Android security patch update that includes patch ID ALPS06171715.
- 4. If no update is available from the device OEM, consider upgrading to a device that currently receives security updates.
- 5. Alternatively, verify if a custom ROM with updated MediaTek firmware is available from a trusted source.
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,832.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-20063 — 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-2022-20063 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