CVE-2024-32930
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 plugin_ipc_handler of slc_plugin.c, there is a possible information disclosure due to uninitialized data. 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 · moderate confidenceIn the plugin_ipc_handler function of slc_plugin.c, a 4-byte uninitialized stack variable is being returned or copied in IPC communication, leaking stack memory contents to local callers. This uninitialized data disclosure occurs 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
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/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.
-
Identify if slc_plugin component existsSearch for slc_plugin.c or libslc_plugin on the device filesystem: find / -name '*slc*plugin*' 2>/dev/null or check /vendor/lib or /system/lib for relevant librariesAffected if The slc_plugin library or binary is present on the device
-
Check for plugin_ipc_handler functionIf a binary is found, examine it for the plugin_ipc_handler symbol using strings or objdump: strings <binary> | grep plugin_ipc_handler or nm <binary> | grep plugin_ipc_handlerAffected if The plugin_ipc_handler function symbol is found in any installed binary
-
Verify IPC communication pathCheck if any application or service communicates with the SLC plugin IPC interface. Review SELinux logs or audit system for ipc communication related to slc_pluginAffected if IPC communication with the slc_plugin component is occurring on the device
-
Confirm Android baseband/secure element componentCheck if the device has a baseband processor, secure element, or hardware-specific secure logic that uses this plugin: check /proc/icnss or similar secure processor nodes, and review vendor-specific system-on-chip documentationAffected if The device contains a baseband, secure element, or trustzone component that implements the slc_plugin IPC handler
The environment is affected if the slc_plugin component with the plugin_ipc_handler function is present on the Android device, as the vulnerability leaks uninitialized stack data during IPC communication regardless of Android version.
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 dataInitialize all stack buffers in the plugin_ipc_handler function before use, specifically the 4-byte buffer being used for IPC responses, to prevent disclosure of residual stack data.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation1.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,376.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-32930 — 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-2024-32930 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