CVE-2023-20655
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 mmsdk, there is a possible escalation of privilege due to a parcel format mismatch. This could lead to local code execution with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS07203022; Issue ID: ALPS07203022.
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 mmsdk (Android multimedia SDK), a parcel format mismatch vulnerability exists that enables local privilege escalation and code execution without requiring additional privileges or user interaction. The parcel format mismatch occurs in inter-process communication when data is improperly validated during serialization/deserialization, allowing a local attacker to execute code at the elevated privilege level of the mmsdk service.
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
- 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.
-
Check Android OS versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADBAffected if The version is 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, or 13.0 exactly
-
Verify mmsdk service presenceRun 'adb shell ps -A | grep mmsdk' or check /system/vendor/lib/hw/mmsdk.*.so existenceAffected if The mmsdk service or library is present on the device
-
Check current patch levelRun 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' via ADB or check Security patch level in Settings > About Phone > Android security patchAffected if The security patch level is earlier than the vendor fix ALPS07203022 or is not dated after the fix release
-
Verify parcel handling in mmsdkExamine mmsdk service logs via 'adb shell logcat | grep mmsdk' for parcel-related errors or examine the mmsdk library binary for the vulnerable parcel validation code if accessibleAffected if Parcel format mismatch errors appear in logs or the binary lacks the corrected validation logic
A device is affected if it runs Android 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, or 13.0 with the mmsdk component present and has not received the vendor patch ALPS07203022 addressing the parcel format mismatch.
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 ALPS07203022 which corrects the parcel format handling in mmsdk to prevent local privilege escalation and unauthorized code execution.
- 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-2023-20655 — 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-2023-20655 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