CVE-2024-32920
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 set_secure_reg of sac_handler.c, there is a possible out of bounds read due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local information disclosure of 4 bytes of stack memory 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 · high confidenceA missing bounds check in the set_secure_reg function of sac_handler.c allows an out-of-bounds read of 4 bytes from the stack. This occurs when the code accesses memory beyond the allocated buffer without validating the index or size against the buffer boundaries, exposing sensitive stack memory contents to a local attacker without requiring elevated 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
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
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 the target device runs Google AndroidCheck the operating system by reviewing /system/build.prop or using 'getprop ro.build.id' to verify Android is the OSAffected if The device does not run Google Android OS (this CVE only affects Android)
-
Identify the Android build versionRun 'getprop ro.build.version.release' to determine the Android version numberAffected if All Android versions are affected per the CVE advisory - there is no safe version range
-
Locate the sac_handler componentSearch for files named 'sac_handler.c', 'sac_handler', or 'libsac' in /vendor, /system, or /boot partitions using 'find / -name '*sac_handler*' 2>/dev/null'Affected if The vulnerable set_secure_reg function exists in this component; if present and running on Android, the device is potentially affected
-
Verify secure boot or TEE is enabledCheck if the device has a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) or secure boot by examining /proc/tee/info or using 'getprop ro.tee' if availableAffected if The vulnerable set_secure_reg function operates within the TEE/secure boot context; devices with TEE enabled that contain the vulnerable sac_handler component are affected
-
Check for the set_secure_reg function in system binariesUse 'strings' or 'grep' to search for 'set_secure_reg' in /vendor/firmware or /system/bin/* binaries: 'strings /vendor/firmware/* 2>/dev/null | grep set_secure_reg'Affected if The presence of this function confirms the vulnerable code path exists on the device
Since all Google Android versions are affected and the vulnerability is in a specific function (set_secure_reg in sac_handler.c), a device is affected if it runs any version of Android and contains the vulnerable component with the out-of-bounds read capability.
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.
dbcve · scopedImplement proper bounds validation before array/buffer access in set_secure_reg to ensure the read index stays within allocated buffer limits. Validate all size parameters and buffer boundaries before performing memory reads.
Android Security Patch Level 2024-06-01 or later (verify exact patch level in official Android Security Bulletin)
- Check the Android Security Bulletin for the month when CVE-2024-32920 was addressed to identify the specific patch level containing the fix
- Apply the latest Android security patch level for your device. Navigate to Settings > Security > Security update and ensure the patch level includes the fix for this CVE
- For devices with older patch levels, contact your device manufacturer (OEM) to obtain the security update that addresses CVE-2024-32920
- If no update is available from your OEM, consider migrating to a device that receives regular security updates or a custom ROM that includes the fix
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 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 $3,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-32920 — 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-2024-32920 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