CVE-2024-27366
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 · uneditedAn issue was discovered in Samsung Mobile Processor, Wearable Processor Exynos Exynos 980, Exynos 850, Exynos 1080, Exynos 1280, Exynos 1380, Exynos 1330, Exynos 1480, Exynos W920, Exynos W930. In the function slsi_rx_scan_done_ind(), there is no input validation check on a length coming from userspace, which can lead to a potential heap over-read.
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 confidenceIn Samsung Exynos processors (980, 850, 1080, 1280, 1380, 1330, 1480, W920, W930), the function slsi_rx_scan_done_ind() accepts a length parameter from userspace without validating it, allowing a malicious userspace caller to trigger a heap over-read by specifying an invalid length that causes reads beyond allocated 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 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
- Local
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/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 Exynos processor modelCheck system information or /proc/cpuinfo to determine the exact Exynos chipset model (980, 850, 1080, 1280, 1380, 1330, 1480, W920, or W930)Affected if The device uses any of the listed Exynos models (980, 850, 1080, 1280, 1380, 1330, 1480, W920, W930)
-
Check firmware versionQuery the Exynos firmware version through vendor-specific interfaces (e.g., AT commands on mobile, debug UART, or /sys/class/firmware if exposed)Affected if The firmware version is earlier than the version containing Samsung's security patch for CVE-2024-27366 (check Samsung security bulletin for version details)
-
Verify slsi_rx_scan_done_ind accessibilityDetermine if userspace can invoke the vulnerable function through available kernel interfaces (check for SLSI kernel module presence and its configuration)Affected if The slsi_rx_scan_done_ind function is exposed to userspace and accessible without additional privileges beyond standard interface access
A defender is affected if their device contains an affected Exynos chipset (980/850/1080/1280/1380/1330/1480/W920/W930) and the firmware has not been updated to include the patch for CVE-2024-27366.
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 dataSamsung must release a firmware patch that adds proper input validation on the userspace-derived length parameter before it's used in memory operations within slsi_rx_scan_done_ind(). Device users should apply vendor firmware updates as they become available.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing16.0 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 $8,576.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-27366 — 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-2024-27366 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