CVE-2023-32823
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 rpmb , there is a possible memory corruption due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS07912966; Issue ID: ALPS07912966.
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 confidenceA missing bounds check in the rpmb (Replay Protected Memory Block) subsystem allows memory corruption, leading to local privilege escalation. The vulnerability requires System-level execution privileges to exploit and does not need user interaction. This is a classic buffer boundary issue where input validation is insufficient before memory operations.
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= 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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 Android versionCheck the device settings under Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if The version listed is exactly 12.0 or 13.0
-
Confirm rpmb subsystem presenceCheck if the device has an rpmb partition by examining /proc/cmdline or /sys/class/mmcblk/mmcblk0rpmb/ exists, or run 'ls -la /dev/block/*rpmb*' via ADBAffected if The rpmb partition exists on the device (this is required for the vulnerability to be present)
-
Verify system-level execution contextDetermine if the device has been rooted or compromised by checking for superuser apps, su binary presence, or unusual root grant requests via 'which su' or 'ls /system/app/Superuser'Affected if The device has root or system-level access granted to untrusted applications, enabling the exploitation context
-
Look for exploitation indicatorsReview system logs (logcat -d -b all) for anomalous rpmb operations, unexpected mmcblk0rpmb access, or memory corruption errors in kernel logs via 'dmesg | grep -i rpmb'Affected if Logs show unexpected rpmb read/write operations, memory corruption panics, or privilege escalation events
A device is affected if it runs Android 12.0 or 13.0, contains an active rpmb partition, and an attacker already has system-level execution access to trigger the bounds check failure.
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 the vendor patch ALPS07912966 which adds proper bounds checking to the rpmb memory operations. Since this is a local privilege escalation vector, ensure system-level access controls are hardened and monitor for exploitation attempts until the patch is deployed.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,160.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-32823 — 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-2023-32823 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