CVE-2024-27362
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 · uneditedA vulnerability was discovered in Samsung Mobile Processors Exynos 1280, Exynos 2200, Exynos 1330, Exynos 1380, and Exynos 2400 where they do not properly check the length of the data, which can lead to a Information disclosure.
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 confidenceThe vulnerability exists in Samsung Exynos mobile processors (1280, 2200, 1330, 1380, 2400) where insufficient bounds checking on data length can lead to information disclosure. This is likely a buffer over-read in the baseband or firmware component that processes external input without proper validation of buffer boundaries.
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 versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall 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
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N
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 Exynos processor modelCheck /proc/cpuinfo or device Settings > About Phone > Processor information to determine if the device uses an Exynos 1280, 2200, 1330, 1380, or 2400 chipsetAffected if The processor model matches any of: Exynos 1280, 2200, 1330, 1380, or 2400
-
Check baseband firmware versionNavigate to Settings > About Phone > Software information and look for the Baseband version or modem firmware version entryAffected if A baseband version is reported and the processor is one of the affected Exynos models listed above (all versions are affected)
-
Verify baseband component is activeCheck that the device has cellular connectivity capability and the baseband/modem firmware is loaded (visible in kernel logs via dmesg or /proc/kmsg)Affected if The baseband processor is present and functional on a device with an affected Exynos chipset, indicating the vulnerable code path could be exercised
If your device contains an Exynos 1280, 2200, 1330, 1380, or 2400 processor with active baseband firmware, you are affected by this vulnerability as all firmware versions of these chipsets lack the bounds checking fix.
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-supplied security firmware updates/patches from Samsung and ensure Android security patch levels are current, as this is a firmware-level vulnerability requiring vendor-provided fixes.
- Consultation6.0 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 $6,144.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-27362 — 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-2024-27362 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