CVE-2023-37377
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Samsung Exynos Mobile Processor and Wearable Processor (Exynos 980, Exynos 850, Exynos 2100, and Exynos W920). Improper handling of length parameter inconsistency can cause incorrect packet filtering.
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 vulnerability in Samsung Exynos mobile and wearable processors (980, 850, 2100, W920) allows improper handling of length parameter inconsistency during packet filtering operations, potentially allowing bypass of security filters.
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 dataall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsCVSS 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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 the Exynos processor modelOn Android devices, check /proc/cpuinfo or use a system info app to identify the processor. Look for 'Exynos 980', 'Exynos 850', 'Exynos 2100', or 'Exynos W920' in the hardware or model information.Affected if The device contains any of the four affected Exynos chips: 980, 850, 2100, or W920
-
Check baseband firmware versionOn Android, go to Settings > About Phone > Software Information and check the 'Baseband version' or use 'AT+CGMR' command in a terminal if baseband AT interface is accessible. Record the firmware version string.Affected if The baseband firmware is from Samsung and corresponds to the Exynos 980, 850, 2100, or W920 chipset (all versions are affected)
-
Verify packet filtering is enabledCheck if packet filtering or firewall rules are configured on the device. On Android, examine iptables rules via 'iptables -L' or 'ip6tables -L' in a terminal, or check any installed security/firewall applications for active filtering policies.Affected if Packet filtering or security filter rules are actively configured on the device
-
Review network security configurationsExamine the device's network security settings. Check for any custom packet handling rules, APNs with filtering enabled, or Samsung-specific security modules related to network traffic inspection.Affected if Custom packet filtering rules, APN-based filtering, or Samsung's network protection features are configured
A user is affected if their device uses an Exynos 980, 850, 2100, or W920 processor with packet filtering enabled, as all firmware versions of these chips contain the vulnerability.
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-supplied firmware/security updates from Samsung for affected devices. Monitor Samsung's security bulletins for patch availability.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,048.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-37377 — 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-2023-37377 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