CVE-2024-27381
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_send_action_frame_ut(), there is no input validation check on len coming from userspace, which can lead to a 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 · moderate confidenceA heap over-read vulnerability exists in Samsung Exynos mobile processors (980, 850, 1280, 1380, 1330) in the function slsi_send_action_frame_ut(). The function accepts a len parameter from userspace without validating that it falls within safe bounds, allowing an attacker to read beyond allocated heap memory.
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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/UI:N/S:U/C:H/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.
-
Identify the device processorCheck the system-on-chip (SoC) information in your device settings, /proc/cpuinfo, or using diagnostic tools (e.g., CPU-Z, AIDA64). Look for the processor model number.Affected if The processor is not one of: Exynos 980, Exynos 850, Exynos 1280, Exynos 1380, or Exynos 1330
-
Verify the Exynos model numberConfirm the exact Exynos variant from step 1 matches one of the five affected models: 980, 850, 1280, 1380, or 1330.Affected if The identified Exynos model is NOT in the list of affected processors
-
Check firmware versionRetrieve the firmware version through device settings (About Phone > Software Information), manufacturer tools, or by inspecting the bootloader/NVRAM. Since all firmware versions are affected, any version confirms exposure.Affected if Any firmware version is present on an affected Exynos model (980, 850, 1280, 1380, or 1330)
-
Verify vulnerable function presenceIf you have access to the firmware binary (via firmware extraction tools or debugging interfaces), search for the symbol 'slsi_send_action_frame_ut' in the WiFi firmware component.Affected if The function slsi_send_action_frame_ut exists in the loaded WiFi firmware
A device is affected if it uses any of these Exynos processors (980, 850, 1280, 1380, 1330) regardless of firmware version, as all versions contain the vulnerable slsi_send_action_frame_ut function.
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 strict bounds checking on the userspace-provided len parameter before using it in memory operations. This is a firmware-level fix requiring an update from Samsung.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing4.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,040.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-27381 — 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-2024-27381 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