CVE-2024-31959
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 a check for the validation of native handles, which can result in code execution.
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 missing validation check for native handles in Samsung Exynos 2200, 1480, and 2400 mobile processors allows an attacker to potentially achieve code execution. This appears to be a privilege escalation or security bypass vulnerability in the processor's firmware or trusted execution environment.
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 Exynos processor modelOn an Android device, run 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' in a terminal or ADB shell, or check the device specifications in Settings > About Phone. Look for the 'Hardware' or 'model' field that displays the SoC (System-on-Chip) name.Affected if The processor model listed is Exynos 2200, Exynos 1480, or Exynos 2400.
-
Confirm the exact variantCheck the full marketing name or part number of the processor. Samsung Exynos 2200 may appear as 's5e9925' in some diagnostic tools, Exynos 1480 as 's5e8845', and Exynos 2400 as 's5e9935' in kernel logs or /sys/devices/system/cpu.Affected if The variant identifier matches one of these three processor families.
-
Verify TEE or trusted firmware is presentCheck if the device has a Trusted Execution Environment active by examining /sys/firmware/ or using 'dmesg | grep -i tee' via ADB to see if TEE logging is present. This vulnerability affects the native handle validation in the firmware/TEE.Affected if The device has an active TEE and runs on an affected Exynos model.
-
Check vendor security patch levelOn the Android device, go to Settings > About Phone > Software Information and note the Security Patch Level date. Compare against Samsung's release notes for when a fix for this issue was deployed.Affected if The Security Patch Level is earlier than the vendor's release date for addressing this specific vulnerability, and the processor is an affected model.
A device is affected if it contains an Exynos 2200, 1480, or 2400 processor and has not yet received the vendor security update addressing the missing native handle validation, as all firmware versions of these models are 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 vendor-provided security firmware updates from Samsung for affected Exynos processors; this is a hardware-level fix requiring an OEM patch rather than application-layer remediation.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing16.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $11,520.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-31959 — 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-2024-31959 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