CVE-2024-25990
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 pktproc_perftest_gen_rx_packet_sktbuf_mode of link_rx_pktproc.c, there is a possible out of bounds write due to a race condition. This could lead to local escalation of privilege with System 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 race condition in the pktproc_perftest_gen_rx_packet_sktbuf_mode function in link_rx_pktproc.c leads to an out-of-bounds write vulnerability, which can be exploited for local privilege escalation to System level without user interaction.
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= 13.0CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/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.
-
Check Android versionGo to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via adb shellAffected if Version is exactly 13.0 (Android 13)
-
Identify packet processing componentsSearch for any installed applications or system services that utilize packet processing functionality, particularly those that may interact with 'sktbuf' or socket buffer mechanismsAffected if A custom packet processing application or service that uses the vulnerable pktproc_perftest_gen_rx_packet_sktbuf_mode function is installed and running
-
Review system logs for crashesRun 'logcat -d' or check /data/logd/ for out-of-bounds write errors related to packet buffer operationsAffected if Logs show crashes or errors mentioning out-of-bounds writes in packet processing code, particularly from link_rx_pktproc.c
-
Check for privilege escalation indicatorsReview system audit logs (ausearch if enabled) or dmesg for any unexpected privilege escalation attempts or system-level process spawns from untrusted contextsAffected if Evidence exists of processes gaining System-level privileges unexpectedly, especially from packet processing contexts
A defender is affected if running Android 13.0 and has any custom packet processing components or services that implement the pktproc_perftest_gen_rx_packet_sktbuf_mode function from link_rx_pktproc.c, which would be vulnerable to local privilege escalation via the race condition.
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 dataFix requires adding proper synchronization primitives (locks/mutexes) around the packet buffer operations to prevent the race condition, along with bounds checking on buffer indices to prevent the out-of-bounds write.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $7,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-25990 — 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-2024-25990 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