CVE-2024-27229
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 ss_SendCallBarringPwdRequiredIndMsg of ss_CallBarring.c, there is a possible null pointer deref due to a missing null check. This could lead to remote denial of service 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 · high confidenceA null pointer dereference vulnerability exists in the ss_SendCallBarringPwdRequiredIndMsg function within ss_CallBarring.c. The function fails to validate a pointer before dereferencing it, allowing an attacker to trigger a denial of service by providing input that results in a null pointer being passed to this function. No authentication or 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 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/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.
-
Confirm device runs Google AndroidCheck system properties or settings to verify the OS is Google Android (not a different Android-based fork)Affected if The device runs any version of Google Android OS
-
Identify Call Barring component versionInspect the telephony or modem firmware components that handle SS (Supplementary Services) call barring functionality; check for the ss_CallBarring.c module or ss_SendCallBarringPwdRequiredIndMsg function in the systemAffected if The ss_SendCallBarringPwdRequiredIndMsg function is present in the Call Barring implementation without null pointer validation fixes
-
Determine if Call Barring service is activeCheck whether the device or network configuration has Call Barring supplementary service enabled or accessibleAffected if Call Barring supplementary service is reachable on the device (the vulnerable function processes Call Barring password requests)
-
Verify the vulnerable code path is reachableConfirm that the ss_SendCallBarringPwdRequiredIndMsg function can be triggered through network or local service requests without authenticationAffected if The function processes input without validating pointers, allowing null pointer dereference when triggered
A Google Android device is affected if it contains the vulnerable ss_SendCallBarringPwdRequiredIndMsg function in the Call Barring component without the null pointer validation fix, and the Call Barring service is accessible.
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 dataImplement proper null pointer validation before dereferencing any pointers in ss_SendCallBarringPwdRequiredIndMsg. Apply the fix through a code update following secure coding practices for pointer handling.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing4.0 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 $2,464.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-27229 — 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-2024-27229 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