CVE-2024-51440
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 in Nothing Tech Nothing OS v.2.6 allows a local attacker to escalate privileges via the NtBpfService component.
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 local privilege escalation vulnerability exists in Nothing OS version 2.6 within the NtBpfService component. The service, which handles BPF (Berkeley Packet Filter) operations, lacks proper authorization checks, allowing an unprivileged local attacker to execute code with elevated (system) privileges.
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
- 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.
-
Verify Nothing OS versionCheck the device Settings > About Phone > Version to confirm the installed Nothing OS build number. Compare against version 2.6 specifically.Affected if The device is running Nothing OS version 2.6 exactly.
-
Confirm NtBpfService component existsLook for the NtBpfService in the device system services list. On Android, this can be verified through dumpsys: run 'adb shell dumpsys' and search for 'NtBpfService' or 'Bpf' in the output.Affected if The NtBpfService component is present and enumerated on the device.
-
Check if NtBpfService is runningRun 'adb shell ps -A | grep -i bpf' or 'adb shell service list' to see if the BPF-related service is actively running.Affected if The NtBpfService process is active and running with elevated privileges.
-
Inspect BPF device node permissionsCheck for BPF device nodes by running 'adb shell ls -la /dev/bpf*' or similar BPF-related paths. Verify the file permissions and ownership to see if unprivileged users have access.Affected if The BPF device nodes are accessible by unprivileged users or have permissive permissions (e.g., world-readable/writable).
If the device runs Nothing OS version 2.6 and the NtBpfService is present and accessible without proper authorization controls, the device is likely affected by this privilege escalation vulnerability.
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 the vendor patch for CVE-2024-51440 when available; until then, restrict device root access and monitor for unauthorized access to the NtBpfService.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation16.0 h
- Testing12.0 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 $11,072.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-51440 — 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-2024-51440 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