CVE-2024-31957
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 · uneditedA vulnerability was discovered in Samsung Mobile Processors Exynos 2200 and Exynos 2400 where they lack a check for the validation of native handles, which can result in a DoS(Denial of Service) attack by unmapping an invalid length.
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 confidenceVulnerability in Samsung Exynos 2200 and Exynos 2400 mobile processors where native handle validation is not performed, allowing a denial of service attack through unmapping memory with an invalid length.
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 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/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 processor modelCheck the device system information or /proc/cpuinfo to determine the SoC model. On Android devices, this can be found in Settings > About Phone > SoC name, or via terminal commands like 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' or 'getprop ro.hardware'Affected if The processor is Samsung Exynos 2200 or Exynos 2400
-
Confirm firmware versionIf the Exynos processor is identified, attempt to retrieve the firmware version through manufacturer diagnostic tools, kernel logs, or device firmware update settings. The specific method varies by device manufacturer and Android versionAffected if Any firmware version is found on Exynos 2200 or Exynos 2400 (all versions are affected)
-
Check for security patch levelVerify the Android security patch level in Settings > About Phone > Security Patch Level. Compare against the date when Samsung released firmware addressing this vulnerabilityAffected if The security patch level is earlier than the vendor-supplied fix date for this CVE
A user is affected if their device contains a Samsung Exynos 2200 or Exynos 2400 processor and the firmware has not been updated with the vendor-supplied patch for CVE-2024-31957
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 vendor-supplied firmware/microcode updates from Samsung for affected Exynos 2200 and Exynos 2400 processors.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $8,320.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-31957 — 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-2024-31957 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