CVE-2023-20850
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 imgsys_cmdq, there is a possible out of bounds write due to a missing valid range checking. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS07340433; Issue ID: ALPS07340381.
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 imgsys_cmdq (image system command queue), a missing valid range check allows an out-of-bounds write. An attacker with System execution privileges and user interaction can exploit this to achieve local privilege escalation.
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= 6.1= 4.0= 23.0= 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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/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 the kernel versionRun 'uname -r' or check /proc/version to get the installed kernel versionAffected if The kernel version is exactly 6.1 (exact match required per CVEs)
-
Identify the system-on-chip (SoC) vendorCheck /sys/devices/soc0/soc_id, /sys/class/socinfo/soc_id, or run 'lscpu' to determine if the device uses a MediaTek SoCAffected if The system uses a MediaTek SoC that includes the imgsys_cmdq component
-
Verify the imgsys_cmdq kernel module is loadedRun 'lsmod | grep cmdq' or check /sys/module/ for cmdq-related modules (such as mtk_cmdq, cmdq_core, or imgsys_cmdq)Affected if The imgsys_cmdq or related cmdq kernel module is present and loaded
-
Confirm Android security patch levelCheck /system/build.prop for 'ro.build.version.security_patch' or run 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch'Affected if The device runs Android 11.0 or 12.0 and has not received the vendor patch ALPS07340433
A system is affected if it runs Linux Kernel 6.1 or Android 11.0/12.0 on a MediaTek SoC with the imgsys_cmdq component present and lacks the vendor patch ALPS07340433 for proper range 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 dataApply vendor patch ALPS07340433 to implement proper range validation in the imgsys_cmdq component.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-20850 — 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-2023-20850 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