CVE-2024-47019
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 ProtocolEmbmsSaiListAdapter::Init() of protocolembmsadapter.cpp, there is a possible out of bounds read due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local information disclosure with baseband firmware compromise required. 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 confidenceAn out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in ProtocolEmbmsSaiListAdapter::Init() in protocolembmsadapter.cpp due to a missing bounds check. This allows local information disclosure but requires prior baseband firmware compromise as a prerequisite. No user interaction is needed for exploitation.
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.
-
Confirm Android versionRun 'getprop ro.build.version.release' or check Settings > About Phone > Android versionAffected if Any Android version is present (all versions are affected)
-
Check if eMBMS feature is enabledInspect system logs for eMBMS-related messages using 'logcat | grep -i embms' or check if the device has ever connected to eMBMS-enabled networksAffected if eMBMS is enabled or has been used on the device (the vulnerable code path in ProtocolEmbmsSaiListAdapter::Init() is exercised when eMBMS SAI list initialization occurs)
-
Identify protocolembmsadapter componentSearch for 'protocolembmsadapter' in system libraries using 'find /system -name "*.so" -exec sh -c "strings \$1 | grep -q ProtocolEmbmsSaiListAdapter && echo \$1" _ {} \;' 2>/dev/null'Affected if The library containing the vulnerable ProtocolEmbmsSaiListAdapter::Init() function is present on the device
-
Assess baseband firmware integrityCheck for indicators of baseband compromise via 'dmesg | grep -i firmware' or review baseband crash dumps in /data/vendor/ for unexpected modificationsAffected if Baseband firmware shows signs of compromise or unauthorized modification (exploitation requires prior baseband firmware compromise as a prerequisite)
A user is affected if the device uses Android with an eMBMS-enabled baseband that has been compromised, as the vulnerable ProtocolEmbmsSaiListAdapter::Init() code path requires a compromised baseband to trigger the out-of-bounds read.
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 dataAdd proper bounds validation before array access in the Init() function to ensure the SAI list index remains within valid bounds. Input data from the baseband should be treated as untrusted and validated before use.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 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 $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-47019 — 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-2024-47019 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