CVE-2023-32860
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 display, there is a possible classic buffer overflow 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: ALPS07929788; Issue ID: ALPS07929788.
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 classic buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the display subsystem due to missing bounds checking. The flaw allows a local attacker with System-level privileges to escalate to higher privileges without user interaction. This appears to be a MediaTek/ALPS display driver vulnerability.
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.
-
Check Android OS versionRun 'getprop ro.build.version.release' or check Settings > About Phone > Android versionAffected if Version is exactly 12.0 or 13.0 (not 12L, 14, or other variants)
-
Identify display driver vendorCheck /proc/boardinfo or run 'getprop ro.hardware' to identify the chipset vendor; examine /system/lib/hw/display.*.so or /vendor/lib/hw/display.*.so for MediaTek/ALPS driver filesAffected if Device uses MediaTek display driver (ALPS display component)
-
Verify exploit prerequisitesConfirm the device has a local attacker with System-level access capability; check running processes with 'ps -A | grep -i system' to identify processes running as system userAffected if Untrusted apps can potentially escalate to System privileges on the device
Device is affected only if running Android 12.0 or 13.0 exactly AND uses a MediaTek/ALPS display driver component, making it exploitable by a local attacker with System-level access.
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 patch ALPS07929788 to add proper bounds checking in the display component. As this is a local privilege escalation requiring System privileges, prioritize patching devices with this display component.
- Contact your device OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) to verify if they have released a security update containing the MediaTek patch ALPS07929788
- Apply the latest Android Security Patch Level (ASPL) available for your device through system software updates
- For device manufacturers: Obtain the MediaTek patch ALPS07929788 from MediaTek and integrate it into your custom Android build
- Verify the patch has been applied by checking the Android Security Patch Level in Settings > About Phone > Security Patch Level
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-32860 — 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-2023-32860 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