CVE-2024-20099
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 power, there is a possible out of bounds write due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS08997492; Issue ID: MSV-1625.
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 · high confidenceThis is a local privilege escalation vulnerability in the power subsystem. The issue is an out-of-bounds write caused by a missing bounds check, which allows a local attacker with System-level execution privileges to escalate privileges further. No user interaction is required for exploitation.
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= 4.0= 12.0= 15.0CVSS 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 the operating system distributionRun 'cat /etc/os-release' or check system properties to determine if the system is running Yocto or AndroidAffected if The system is not Android 12.0, Android 15.0, or Yocto 4.0 - other versions are not affected by this specific CVE
-
Confirm the exact OS versionFor Android: check 'getprop ro.build.version.release' or settings > about phone. For Yocto: check 'cat /etc/version' or the image version fileAffected if The version is not exactly 4.0 for Yocto, or exactly 12.0 or 15.0 for Android - only these specific versions are affected
-
Verify current privilege levelRun 'whoami' and 'id' commands to check if you have System-level or root privilegesAffected if The current user does not have System-level execution privileges - this CVE requires the attacker to already have System-level access to escalate further
-
Check the power subsystem componentExamine system logs or power management configuration files if accessible - the vulnerability exists in the power component of the affected systemsAffected if The system runs a modified or vendor-customized power component that may have the bounds check missing; compare against vendor documentation for patch ALPS08997492
The system is affected only if it runs exactly Android 12.0, Android 15.0, or Yocto 4.0 AND the attacker already has System-level execution privileges, since this is a local privilege escalation from System to higher privileges.
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 vendor patch ALPS08997492 which addresses the missing bounds check in the power component. This is a critical security update that should be prioritized given the privilege escalation potential despite the moderate CVSS score.
- Consultation2.0 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 $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20099 — 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-2024-20099 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