CVE-2024-20060
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 da, there is a possible escalation of privilege due to an incorrect status check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS08541749; Issue ID: ALPS08541754.
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 local privilege escalation vulnerability exists in a daemon (da) component where an incorrect status check allows privilege escalation. The vulnerability can be exploited locally without user interaction, requiring System-level execution privileges to trigger. The vendor has released a patch (ALPS08541749) to address the incorrect status check logic.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
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.
-
Check Android OS versionNavigate to Settings > About Phone > Android version or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if Version matches 12.0, 13.0, or 14.0 specifically (note: range operators in original advisory may indicate broader affected versions)
-
Identify the vulnerable daemon componentList running processes or examine system binaries in firmware images; the vulnerability exists in a MediaTek/ALPS daemon (da) componentAffected if The specific daemon binary with the incorrect status check logic is present and running on the device
-
Verify patch ALPS08541749 presenceCheck system build properties or firmware metadata for the applied patch identifier; on MediaTek-based Android devices, examine /system/build.prop or vendor partitions for patch metadataAffected if Patch ALPS08541749 is NOT applied to the daemon component (vulnerable logic remains)
-
Confirm execution contextThe vulnerability requires System-level execution privileges to trigger the privilege escalation; verify current process privilegesAffected if Attacker has System-level access to execute the vulnerable code path in the daemon
A device is affected if it runs Android 12.0, 13.0, or 14.0 with the vulnerable MediaTek/ALPS daemon component present and missing patch ALPS08541749, allowing a System-level attacker to escalate privileges through the flawed status check.
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 ALPS08541749 to the affected daemon component. Since this is a firmware-level issue in a MediaTek/ALPS component, organizations should update device firmware or obtain updated images from their hardware vendor.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20060 — 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-2024-20060 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