CVE-2023-48402
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 ppcfw_enable of ppcfw.c, there is a possible EoP due to a missing permission check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
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 missing permission check in the ppcfw_enable function within ppcfw.c allows local users to escalate privileges. The vulnerability requires no additional execution privileges or user interaction to exploit, making it a straightforward local privilege escalation vector.
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 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.
-
Confirm device is running Google AndroidRun 'getprop ro.build.type' or check for /system partition existenceAffected if Device runs any version of Google Android and has the vulnerable ppcfw component present
-
Check if ppcfw kernel module is loadedRun 'lsmod | grep ppcfw' or check 'cat /proc/modules' for ppcfw entryAffected if The ppcfw module appears in loaded modules list
-
Check for ppcfw in kernel modules directoryRun 'ls -la /sys/module/ | grep ppcfw' or check if /sys/module/ppcfw directory existsAffected if The ppcfw module directory exists under /sys/module/
-
Verify kernel configuration for ppcfw supportCheck kernel config file (often /boot/config-* or /proc/config.gz) for CONFIG_PPCFW or similar ppcfw-related optionsAffected if Kernel has ppcfw support enabled in configuration
-
Check for ppcfw device node or driverRun 'ls -la /dev/*ppc*' or check /sys/class/ for ppcfw-related device entriesAffected if A ppcfw-related device or driver interface exists on the system
If the device runs Google Android and has the ppcfw component present or loaded, the system is likely affected by this privilege escalation vulnerability unless the vendor patch has been applied.
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 the vendor patch that implements proper permission validation in the ppcfw_enable function to enforce authorization checks before enabling the affected subsystem.
- 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-2023-48402 — 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-2023-48402 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