CVE-2024-31956
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 2200, Exynos 1480, Exynos 2400. It lacks proper buffer length checking, which can result in an Out-of-Bounds Write.
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 buffer overflow vulnerability exists in Samsung Exynos 2200, 1480, and 2400 mobile processors due to missing buffer length validation. The lack of proper bounds checking allows an attacker to write data beyond allocated buffer boundaries, potentially leading to code execution or privilege escalation.
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 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 Samsung device, go to Settings > About Phone > Processor information, or use a terminal command like 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' to determine if the device uses an Exynos 2200, 1480, or 2400 chipsetAffected if The processor listed is any of Exynos 2200, 1480, or 2400
-
Check the device modelVerify the device model number from Settings > About Phone > Model Number. Cross-reference with Samsung's official product specifications to confirm the device contains one of the affected Exynos chipsetsAffected if The device model contains an Exynos 2200, 1480, or 2400 processor according to Samsung's published specifications for that model
-
Verify firmware versionNavigate to Settings > About Phone > Software Information > Build Number, or use 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' in ADB shell to check the installed firmware/security patch levelAffected if Any firmware version is present on a device with an affected Exynos chipset (CVE states all versions are affected)
-
Confirm kernel bootloader statusIf available, check the bootloader version via 'getprop ro.bootloader' in ADB shell or review the bootloader information in download mode. The vulnerability exists in the firmware layer, so bootloader version alone does not indicate immunityAffected if The device runs any bootloader version on affected Exynos hardware
A device is affected if it contains an Exynos 2200, 1480, or 2400 processor regardless of firmware version, as all firmware versions for these chipsets are listed as vulnerable.
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 Samsung-provided firmware/security updates for affected Exynos processors. Organizations should inventory affected devices and deploy vendor patches as they become available.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-31956 — 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-2024-31956 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