CVE-2024-29741
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 pblS2mpuResume of s2mpu.c, there is a possible mitigation bypass due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local escalation of privilege 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 · moderate confidenceA logic error in the pblS2mpuResume function within the S2MPU (Secure Memory Protection Unit) subsystem allows a local attacker to bypass existing mitigations and escalate privileges. The vulnerability resides in the resume path of the memory protection unit, likely during transition from a low-power or secure state, enabling privilege escalation without requiring additional execution privileges or user interaction.
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
- 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.
-
Confirm device is running AndroidCheck the operating system by looking at /system/build.prop or running 'getprop ro.build.version.release'Affected if The device is NOT running Android (this CVE only affects Android devices)
-
Determine if S2MPU hardware is presentCheck for S2MPU device nodes in /sys/kernel/debug or /dev/ - look for 's2mpu' entries, or check dmesg for 's2mpu' or 'S2MPU' kernel messagesAffected if S2MPU hardware is present and accessible on the device; if not present, the specific attack surface does not exist
-
Verify kernel version and patch levelRun 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' to check the Android security patch levelAffected if The security patch level is earlier than the vendor fix date for CVE-2024-29741 (patch date varies by vendor)
-
Check for indicators of local privilege escalationReview audit logs (ausearch, dmesg) and process accounting logs for unexpected privilege escalation events, particularly involving processes gaining root or SYSTEM privileges unexpectedlyAffected if Unexpected privilege escalation events are observed in logs without corresponding legitimate system operations
A user is affected if the device runs Android with S2MPU hardware present and the security patch for CVE-2024-29741 has not been applied.
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 the vendor-provided security patch for CVE-2024-29741, which should address the logic error in the S2MPU resume path. If no patch is available, consider disabling or restricting access to the affected subsystem and monitor for exploitation indicators.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-29741 — 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-2024-29741 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