CVE-2022-39118
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 sprd_sysdump driver, there is a possible out of bounds write due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local denial of service in kernel.
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 confidenceThe sprd_sysdump driver (Spreadtrum system dump driver) contains an out-of-bounds write vulnerability caused by a missing bounds check. An attacker with local access could trigger this vulnerability to write beyond allocated buffer boundaries, leading to kernel denial of service. The vulnerability stems from insufficient input validation in the driver code.
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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/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.
-
Check Android versionRun 'getprop ro.build.version.release' or check Settings > About Phone > Android versionAffected if Version is 10.0, 11.0, or 12.0
-
Identify device chipset vendorCheck /proc/cpuinfo for 'Hardware' or 'model' field, or run 'getprop ro.hardware' or 'cat /sys/devices/soc0/soc_id'Affected if Hardware/chipset is Spreadtrum or SPRD (e.g., 'sprd' or 'Spreadtrum' appears in the output)
-
Verify sprd_sysdump driver presenceCheck if driver exists in kernel: 'ls -la /dev/sprd_*' or 'grep -i sprd_sysdump /proc/kallsyms' or check /sys/module for 'sprd_sysdump'Affected if The sprd_sysdump driver module or device node is present on the system
-
Check if driver is loaded or activeRun 'lsmod' to list loaded modules and look for 'sprd_sysdump', or check 'dmesg | grep -i sprd_sysdump' for driver initialization messagesAffected if The driver is loaded and initialized in memory
The environment is affected if running Android 10.0, 11.0, or 12.0 on Spreadtrum hardware with the sprd_sysdump driver present and loaded.
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 patches for the kernel and sprd_sysdump driver to add proper bounds checking. Until the patch is available, restrict local unprivileged access to prevent exploitation of this vulnerability.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-39118 — 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-2022-39118 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