CVE-2022-33275
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 · uneditedMemory corruption due to improper validation of array index in WLAN HAL when received lm_itemNum is out of range.
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 · high confidenceA memory corruption vulnerability exists in the WLAN Hardware Abstraction Layer (HAL) due to insufficient validation of the array index received via the lm_itemNum parameter. When lm_itemNum exceeds the valid array bounds, the unvalidated index is used to access memory, leading to out-of-bounds read/write operations and potential arbitrary code execution.
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 installed Qualcomm firmware productCheck the device's firmware information or system diagnostics to determine the exact chipset/model (e.g., run 'at+cgmm' or check bootloader/dmesg output for the Qualcomm device identifier)Affected if The device is running one of: Qualcomm 315 5g Iot Modem, Aqt1000, Ar8035, Ar9380, Csr8811, Csra6620, Csra6640, or Csrb31024 firmware
-
Verify WLAN HAL module is activeCheck if the WLAN Hardware Abstraction Layer component is loaded and operational on the device (examine running processes, kernel modules, or firmware subsystem status related to WLAN)Affected if WLAN HAL is enabled and actively handling wireless LAN operations on the affected firmware
-
Confirm the lm_itemNum parameter handling is presentExamine WLAN HAL code, firmware logs, or debug output to verify the presence of lm_itemNum parameter usage in memory access operationsAffected if The firmware implements WLAN HAL logic that uses the lm_itemNum parameter for array indexing
-
Check for array bounds validation on lm_itemNumReview firmware configuration, debug interfaces, or HAL implementation to determine if bounds checking exists before lm_itemNum is used to access memory arraysAffected if No bounds validation is performed on lm_itemNum before array access, allowing values exceeding array bounds to be used directly
A user is affected if their device runs one of the listed Qualcomm firmware products with WLAN HAL enabled and the lm_itemNum parameter lacks proper bounds validation.
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 dataImplement proper bounds checking on lm_itemNum against the array size before use in memory access operations. Ensure the index is within valid range and reject or sanitize out-of-range values.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-33275 — 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-2022-33275 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