CVE-2023-32834
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 secmem, there is a possible memory corruption due to type confusion. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS08161762; Issue ID: ALPS08161762.
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 type confusion vulnerability in the secmem (secure memory) subsystem allows memory corruption that can be exploited for local privilege escalation. The vulnerability requires System-level execution privileges to exploit and does not require user interaction.
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= 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
- 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.
-
Check Android versionRun 'adb shell getprop ro.build.version.release' or check Settings > About Phone > Android versionAffected if Version equals 11.0, 12.0, or 13.0 exactly
-
Verify security patch levelRun 'adb shell getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' to see installed security updatesAffected if Patch level is earlier than the date when ALPS08161762 was released
-
Confirm secmem subsystem is activeCheck kernel configuration for CONFIG_SECMEM or check /proc/cmdline for secmem-related parameters; on affected devices, secmem is typically enabled by default in secure memory implementationsAffected if The secmem subsystem is loaded and active on the device
-
Inspect secmem module statusRun 'lsmod | grep secmem' or check /sys/module/secmem/* to see if the secmem module is present and enabledAffected if The secmem module is loaded and running
A device is affected if it runs Android 11.0, 12.0, or 13.0 with the secmem subsystem active and lacks the vendor patch ALPS08161762.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply vendor patch ALPS08161762 to address the type confusion vulnerability in the secmem subsystem. Given the privilege escalation risk, prioritize patching systems where secmem is active.
Android Security Patch Level containing MediaTek ALPS08161762 fix (check Android Security Bulletin for specific date)
- Check your device manufacturer's Android security patch level update; this vulnerability was addressed in the MediaTek security patch release containing ALPS08161762
- Apply the latest Android security update for your device (typically delivered through monthly security bulletins)
- Verify the security patch level in Settings > About Phone > Security Patch Level reflects a date after the CVE was addressed
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-32834 — 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-2023-32834 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