CVE-2024-20104
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 out of bounds write due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS09073261; Issue ID: MSV-1772.
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 confidenceOut of bounds write vulnerability in a daemon component due to missing bounds check, allowing local privilege escalation. Exploitation requires user interaction but no additional execution privileges.
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= 2022q3= 2024q1= 12.0= 13.0= 14.0= 15.0= 19.07.0= 21.02.0= 23.05CVSS 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
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/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 your build environment and versionDetermine which affected product (Yocto, RDK-B, Android, or OpenWrt) is in use and check its specific version string (e.g., run 'cat /etc/os-release' on Linux-based systems or check system settings on Android)Affected if The installed product matches any version listed in the affected ranges (Yocto 4.0, RDK-B 2022q3 or 2024q1, Android 12.0-15.0, or OpenWrt 19.07.0, 21.02.0, 23.05)
-
Locate the 'da' componentSearch for a daemon or service named 'da' or containing 'da' in its name on the system (check /etc/init.d/, /system/bin/, /usr/sbin/, or service listings depending on platform)Affected if The 'da' component is present on the system
-
Check if the daemon is runningRun 'ps aux' or platform-specific process listing command to see if the daemon is actively runningAffected if The daemon is actively executing on the system
-
Determine daemon versionQuery the daemon version using 'da --version', 'da -v', or check the binary directly if version flags are unavailableAffected if The daemon version cannot be determined or matches the vulnerable release versions
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 ALPS09073261 to implement proper bounds validation in the affected daemon component.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $4,864.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-20104 — 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-2024-20104 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