CVE-2024-20024
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 flashc, there is a possible out of bounds write due to lack of valudation. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS08541635; Issue ID: ALPS08541635.
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 is an out-of-bounds write vulnerability in the flashc (flash controller) driver component. The vulnerability exists due to lack of input validation, allowing a local attacker with System privileges to write beyond allocated buffer boundaries, potentially achieving local privilege escalation.
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= 13.0= 14.0CVSS 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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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 Android versionRun 'getprop ro.build.version.release' or check Settings > About Phone > Android version to determine the installed Android OS versionAffected if The version is 12.0, 13.0, or 14.0
-
Locate flashc driverCheck for the presence of the flashc driver module in /dev or /sys filesystem, or run 'ls -la /dev/flashc*' or similar commands to enumerate flash controller device nodesAffected if The flashc driver device node or module exists on the system
-
Verify patch application statusCheck system patch level via 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' or review OTA update logs to determine if patch ALPS08541635 has been appliedAffected if The patch ALPS08541635 is not present or the security patch level is earlier than the fix date
-
Check current privilege levelRun 'whoami' or 'id' command to determine the current user's privilege contextAffected if The process runs with System privileges (uid 1000) or higher administrative access, which would be required to exploit this vulnerability
The system is affected if it runs Android 12.0, 13.0, or 14.0 with the flashc driver present and the ALPS08541635 patch has not 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.
dbcve · scopedApply vendor patch ALPS08541635 which adds proper validation checks in the flashc driver to prevent out-of-bounds memory writes.
- Contact your device OEM or MediaTek for the security patch ALPS08541635 which addresses this vulnerability
- Apply the Android security update containing the fix for CVE-2024-20024
- Verify the device has the latest Android security patch level installed
- For MediaTek-based devices, ensure the OEM has integrated the ALPS08541635 patch into their firmware
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,416.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20024 — 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-2024-20024 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