CVE-2023-32879
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 battery, there is a possible out of bounds write 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: ALPS08308070; Issue ID: ALPS08308064.
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 · high confidenceAn out-of-bounds write vulnerability exists in a MediaTek battery component (ALPS) due to a missing bounds check. This allows a local attacker to escalate privileges to System level without user interaction, potentially executing arbitrary code in a privileged context.
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 versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADBAffected if Version is exactly 12.0 or 13.0
-
Verify MediaTek chipsetRun 'getprop ro.hardware' or 'getprop ro.mediatek.platform' via ADB, or check /proc/cpuinfo for MediaTek processor infoAffected if Device uses a MediaTek SoC (system-on-chip)
-
Confirm battery driver is activeCheck if /dev/battery or relevant battery device node exists; run 'ls -la /sys/class/power_supply/' via ADB to enumerate battery subsystemAffected if Battery subsystem is present and active (required for exploitation)
-
Check MediaTek ALPS patch levelRun 'getprop ro.mediatek.version.release' or 'getprop ro.build.version.alps' via ADB to obtain the ALPS baseline versionAffected if ALPS version is below ALPS08308070 (the fixed baseline)
Device is affected if it runs Android 12.0 or 13.0 on a MediaTek chipset with a battery driver loaded and an ALPS version lower than ALPS08308070.
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 ALPS08308070 to address the missing bounds check in the battery driver; verify the patch integration and test battery functionality to ensure no regression.
- 1. Check if your Android device uses a MediaTek chipset by going to Settings > About Phone > Chipset/Processor info
- 2. Contact your device manufacturer (OEM) to confirm whether they have incorporated MediaTek patch ID ALPS08308070 (Issue ID ALPS08308064) into their security update
- 3. Apply the OEM's latest security update that includes the MediaTek battery driver patch ALPS08308070
- 4. Verify the patch was applied by checking Settings > About Phone > Security Patch Level
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $5,504.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-32879 — 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-2023-32879 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