CVE-2024-27376
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 Exynos 980, Exynos 850, Exynos 1280, Exynos 1380, and Exynos 1330. In the function slsi_nan_subscribe_get_nl_params(), there is no input validation check on hal_req->rx_match_filter_len coming from userspace, which can lead to a heap overwrite.
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 missing input validation vulnerability in Samsung Exynos mobile processors (980, 850, 1280, 1380, 1330) where the rx_match_filter_len parameter from userspace is not validated in the slsi_nan_subscribe_get_nl_params() function before use, allowing a heap buffer overflow.
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
- 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 processor modelOn the device, check /proc/cpuinfo or use 'getprop ro.hardware' or 'cat /sys/devices/soc0/soc_id' to determine the Exynos variantAffected if The processor is NOT one of: Exynos 980, 850, 1280, 1380, or 1330 - if so, not affected
-
Confirm the specific Exynos variantCross-reference the identified processor with Samsung's official Exynos model list to confirm it matches one of the five affected modelsAffected if The device does not use Exynos 980, 850, 1280, 1380, or 1330 - if so, not affected
-
Verify NAN (Neighbor Awareness Networking) supportCheck if the slsi_nan kernel module or NAN functionality is present on the device - look for /sys/class/nan/ or check if 'wlan' driver supports NAN via 'iw list' and grep for NANAffected if NAN functionality is not present or the slsi_nan driver is not loaded - if so, the vulnerable code path is not reachable
-
Check if userspace can trigger the vulnerable functionVerify that the device allows NAN subscription requests from userspace - this is typically handled by the wpa_supplicant or Android's WifiNl80211 library for NANAffected if Userspace cannot interact with the NAN subscribe API - if so, the vulnerable slsi_nan_subscribe_get_nl_params() function cannot be triggered
The environment is affected if the device uses an Exynos 980, 850, 1280, 1380, or 1330 processor and supports NAN functionality that allows userspace to pass the rx_match_filter_len parameter to the slsi driver.
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 dataAdd bounds checking on rx_match_filter_len to ensure it does not exceed the allocated buffer size before performing heap operations; validate against maximum expected filter length.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,640.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-27376 — 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-2024-27376 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