CVE-2024-20010
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 keyInstall, there is a possible escalation of privilege due to type confusion. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS08358560; Issue ID: ALPS08358560.
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 type confusion vulnerability in the keyInstall function of MediaTek ALPS firmware allows a local attacker with System execution privileges to escalate privileges further. The vulnerability requires high-privileged access to exploit but needs no user interaction. This appears to be a firmware-level flaw in MediaTek chipset components.
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= 11.0= 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.
-
Identify MediaTek chipset usageCheck the device specifications or use commands like 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' or 'lspci' on rooted devices to confirm MediaTek hardware is presentAffected if Device uses a MediaTek chipset and is running one of the affected Android versions
-
Verify Android versionCheck the Android OS version on the device through Settings > About Phone or via 'getprop ro.build.version.release' commandAffected if Android version is exactly 11.0, 12.0, or 13.0
-
Confirm System execution privilegesDetermine if the attacker or analysis context has System-level execution privileges on the device (root or System user)Affected if The device is already compromised to System-level access, making privilege escalation possible
-
Check firmware patch levelInspect the MediaTek firmware patch level via 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' or examine the ALPS firmware version directly from the firmware imageAffected if Firmware patch level is prior to ALPS08358560 (unpatched MediaTek firmware)
A device is affected if it runs Android 11.0, 12.0, or 13.0 on MediaTek hardware with unpatched ALPS firmware, and the attacker already has System-level execution privileges to trigger the keyInstall type confusion.
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 MediaTek patch ALPS08358560 through OEM firmware updates. Identify all affected MediaTek-based devices in the environment and prioritize patching given the high-privilege requirement but severe impact if combined with other vulnerabilities.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing8.0 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 $4,928.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20010 — 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-2024-20010 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