CVE-2023-43535
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 · uneditedMemory corruption when negative display IDs are sent as input while processing DISPLAYESCAPE event trigger.
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 memory corruption vulnerability exists in the DISPLAYESCAPE event handler where the code fails to validate display IDs before using them. When a negative display ID is provided as input, it bypasses expected bounds checking and leads to memory corruption, likely through an out-of-bounds read or write operation.
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 versionsall 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 the Qualcomm chipset modelCheck system information or firmware inventory to determine if the device uses any of the affected Qualcomm components (Fastconnect 6700/6900/7800, Snapdragon 7c+ Gen 3, Snapdragon 8cx Gen 3, Sc8380xp, Wcd9380, Wcd9385)Affected if The system contains any of the listed Qualcomm chipsets or wireless/audio firmware components
-
Locate the DISPLAYESCAPE event handlerExamine firmware or driver documentation to find where the DISPLAYESCAPE event handler is implemented; search for 'DISPLAYESCAPE' in firmware binaries or driver codeAffected if The DISPLAYESCAPE handler exists in the firmware or driver on the system
-
Check if display ID validation is presentReview the DISPLAYESCAPE handler code or binary for bounds checking on display IDs, specifically looking for validation that rejects negative values before memory accessAffected if The handler lacks proper validation or contains code that allows negative display IDs to pass to memory operations
-
Determine if display functionality is exposedCheck whether the system exposes display-related escape functions or APIs that could accept display ID parameters from external inputAffected if The DISPLAYESCAPE functionality accepts user-controlled or external display ID input that could trigger the vulnerable code path
A system is affected if it contains any of the listed Qualcomm firmware components and the DISPLAYESCAPE handler can receive display IDs without proper validation, enabling negative IDs to cause memory corruption.
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 dataImplement proper input validation to reject negative display IDs before processing the DISPLAYESCAPE event, ensuring all display IDs are within valid bounds before memory access.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2023-43535 — 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-2023-43535 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