CVE-2022-44419
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 modem, there is a possible missing verification of NAS Security Mode Command Replay Attacks in LTE. This could local denial of service with no additional execution privileges.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability in the LTE modem's NAS (Non-Access Stratum) layer lacks verification mechanisms for Security Mode Command replay attacks. An attacker with local access to the modem could replay previously captured NAS Security Mode Commands, causing a denial of service by disrupting the security negotiation between the UE and network.
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= 12.0= 13.0CVSS 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.
-
Identify the Android OS versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if Version is 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, or 13.0
-
Confirm LTE modem capabilityCheck device specifications or run 'getprop gsm.version.baseband' via ADB shell to identify the modem firmwareAffected if Device contains an LTE baseband/modem component
-
Determine if device connects to LTE networksObserve network type in status bar or check via 'settings get global preferred_network_mode'Affected if Device actively uses or is capable of LTE connectivity
-
Assess local access exposureVerify physical security and authorized access to the device, as the attacker requires local modem accessAffected if Device can be physically accessed by untrusted individuals
The device is affected if it runs Android 10.0 through 13.0 with an active LTE modem, as the NAS layer replay vulnerability exists in these versions regardless of configuration.
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 replay protection for NAS Security Mode Commands using sequence number verification or timestamps to ensure commands are fresh and cannot be reused. This requires updates to the modem's NAS security implementation.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing10.0 h
- Review / QA5.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,520.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-44419 — 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-2022-44419 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