CVE-2024-23698
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 RGXFWChangeOSidPriority of rgxfwutils.c, there is a possible arbitrary code execution due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege in the kernel with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation.
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 missing bounds check in the RGXFWChangeOSidPriority function in rgxfwutils.c allows a local attacker to execute arbitrary code in kernel context, leading to privilege escalation. The vulnerability stems from insufficient validation of input indices or buffer sizes before memory access operations.
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 dataall versionsCVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 GPU hardware vendorCheck /sys/class/kgsl/kgsl-3d0/gpu_model or use 'cat /proc/pvr/version' to determine if the device uses Imagination Technologies PowerVR GPUAffected if The device does not use PowerVR GPU hardware - this CVE only applies to systems with PowerVR/Mali GPUs from Imagination Technologies
-
Check the GPU driver/firmware versionOn Android, examine /system/lib/modules/pvrsrv.ko or check /proc/pvr/version for the driver build version; also check the firmware version in /vendor/firmware/ or /system/firmware/Affected if The installed driver or firmware version predates the security patch that added bounds checking to RGXFWChangeOSidPriority in rgxfwutils.c
-
Verify the vulnerable function exists in driverUse 'strings' on the GPU driver kernel module (usually pvrsrv.ko or similar) to search for 'RGXFWChangeOSidPriority' and examine surrounding code patterns for bounds checkingAffected if The function is present but lacks array index validation or buffer size checks before memory operations
-
Confirm kernel module is loadedCheck if the GPU driver kernel module is loaded via 'lsmod | grep pvr' or by verifying /sys/class/misc/pvrsrvkm exists and is accessibleAffected if The vulnerable driver is actively running with kernel privileges, allowing exploitation of the bounds check flaw
A user is affected if their Android device contains an Imagination Technologies PowerVR GPU with a driver/firmware version that predates the bounds-checking fix in the RGXFWChangeOSidPriority function.
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 bounds checking to all array index and buffer size operations in RGXFWChangeOSidPriority, rebuild the firmware/driver with the fix, and deploy the updated kernel module to affected systems.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $7,616.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-23698 — 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-2024-23698 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