CVE-2022-21778
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 vpu, there is a possible information disclosure due to an incorrect bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS06382421; Issue ID: ALPS06382421.
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 MediaTek's VPU (Video Processing Unit) driver, an incorrect bounds check allows information disclosure. This vulnerability can be exploited locally to escalate privileges to System level by reading beyond allocated memory boundaries, potentially exposing sensitive kernel/driver data that could aid further exploitation.
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.
-
Check Android OS versionQuery the system property 'ro.build.version.release' via 'getprop ro.build.version.release' or check in Settings > About Phone > Android versionAffected if The version is 10.0, 11.0, or 12.0 exactly
-
Identify MediaTek chipsetCheck for MediaTek hardware via 'getprop ro.hardware' or 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' to see if the device uses a MediaTek SoCAffected if The device uses a MediaTek chipset that includes VPU hardware
-
Verify VPU driver presenceCheck if the VPU driver module is loaded or present in /proc/modules, /sys/module/, or via 'lsmod' command to see video processing unit driversAffected if A MediaTek VPU driver module is loaded or available on the device
-
Confirm VPU driver is enabledInspect driver configuration in /sys or /proc filesystem for VPU-related entries, or check if /dev/video* or /dev/mtk_vpu device nodes existAffected if The VPU driver is active and device nodes are present
A device is affected if it runs Android 10.0, 11.0, or 12.0 on MediaTek hardware with an active VPU driver, as the incorrect bounds check vulnerability exists in the MediaTek VPU driver for those Android versions.
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 patch ALPS06382421 to the MediaTek VPU driver/firmware. Since this requires System-level privileges to exploit and is a driver-level issue, ensure all device firmware and kernel updates are deployed in a timely manner.
- Consultation4.0 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 $8,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-21778 — 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-2022-21778 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