CVE-2024-20012
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: ALPS08358566; Issue ID: ALPS08358566.
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 confidenceThis vulnerability is a type confusion flaw in the keyInstall component of MediaTek chipsets. An attacker with System-level execution privileges on the device can exploit this type confusion to escalate privileges, likely achieving root or higher privileges within the Android/Linux system. The flaw does not require user interaction.
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.
-
Confirm MediaTek chipset in useCheck the device System-on-Chip (SoC) information via Settings > About Phone > SoC Name, or run `cat /proc/cpuinfo` and look for 'MT' or MediaTek in the hardware/cpu info.Affected if The device does not contain a MediaTek chipset, the vulnerability does not apply.
-
Verify Android versionCheck Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run `getprop ro.build.version.release` and `getprop ro.build.version.sdk`.Affected if The installed Android version is 12.0 or 13.0 exactly.
-
Locate keyInstall componentCheck for the presence of the keyInstall service or daemon. Common paths include /vendor/bin/keyinstall_daemon or check for 'keyinstall' in running processes via `ps -A | grep keyinstall`.Affected if The keyInstall component is present and running on the device.
-
Assess current privilege contextDetermine if your current process or shell is running with System-level privileges (uid 1000) rather than root (uid 0) or unprivileged user. Run `id` to see the user ID.Affected if The exploit requires System-level privileges (uid 1000) to attempt escalation; if running as root already, the privilege escalation aspect is not applicable, though the component may still be vulnerable.
A device is affected if it runs Android 12.0 or 13.0 on a MediaTek chipset with the keyInstall component present, and the potential attacker already has System-level (but not root) access.
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 (ALPS08358566) through a firmware or system update from the device manufacturer. Organizations should identify and update all affected MediaTek-based devices.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20012 — 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-2024-20012 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