CVE-2024-44067
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 · uneditedThe T-Head XuanTie C910 CPU in the TH1520 SoC and the T-Head XuanTie C920 CPU in the SOPHON SG2042 have instructions that allow unprivileged attackers to write to arbitrary physical memory locations, aka GhostWrite.
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 confidenceGhostWrite is a hardware vulnerability in T-Head XuanTie C910 (TH1520 SoC) and C920 (SOPHON SG2042) RISC-V CPUs where certain CPU instructions allow unprivileged attackers to write to arbitrary physical memory locations, bypassing all software-based memory protections.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
CVSS 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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/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 CPU modelRun 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' or 'lscpu' and look for XuanTie C910, XuanTie C920, TH1520, or SOPHON SG2042 in the processor informationAffected if The CPU model listed is a T-Head XuanTie C910 or C920 (or TH1520/SG2042 SoC)
-
Check SoC/device-treeExamine /proc/device-tree/compatible or /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/compatible for 'xuantie,th1520' or 'sophon,sg2042' stringsAffected if The compatible string contains 'th1520' or 'sg2042'
-
Verify CPU ISA extensionsCheck 'cat /proc/cpuinfo' for the CPU ISA string and look for any non-standard or vendor-specific extensions that may be related to the GhostWrite vulnerabilityAffected if Non-standard Xuantie-specific extensions are present on a C910 or C920 CPU
-
Determine privilege contextAssess whether unprivileged code (userspace applications, containers, VMs) can execute on this systemAffected if Unprivileged code execution is possible on affected hardware
A system is affected if it uses a T-Head XuanTie C910 or C920 CPU (TH1520 or SG2042 SoC) and permits any unprivileged code execution, as the hardware flaw allows memory writes regardless of software protections.
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 dataPrimary mitigation requires CPU/firmware updates from the silicon vendor; as a hardware vulnerability, software patches cannot fully remediate the issue. Implement strong process isolation, privilege separation, and consider hardware replacement if microcode updates are unavailable.
- Consultation16.0 h
- Implementation40.0 h
- Testing24.0 h
- Review / QA12.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $25,856.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-44067 — 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-2024-44067 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