CVE-2024-53020
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 · uneditedInformation disclosure may occur while decoding the RTP packet with invalid header extension from network.
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 vulnerability in RTP (Real-time Transport Protocol) packet decoding allows information disclosure when processing packets with invalid header extensions from the network. The parsing logic fails to properly validate the header extension data, potentially leaking sensitive memory contents to an attacker sending malformed RTP packets.
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 versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall versionsall 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:L
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 the Qualcomm chipset or module in useExamine the device's hardware specifications, FCC ID, FCC filing documents, or system information to determine the exact Qualcomm part number (e.g., Apq8017, Qcm6490, Fastconnect 6200)Affected if The device contains any of the following: Apq8017, Apq8064au, Aqt1000, Fastconnect 6200, Fastconnect 6700, Qcm6125, Qcm6490, or Qcm8550
-
Determine if RTP stream processing is enabledReview the device configuration, firmware settings, or application manifest to check whether any component enables or utilizes RTP (Real-time Transport Protocol) for audio/video streaming or VoIP functionalityAffected if RTP packet decoding or processing is actively enabled on the device
-
Check for network exposure of RTP servicesInspect network listening ports using commands such as 'netstat -an' or 'ss -tuln' and look for typical RTP port ranges (e.g., ports 5000-6000, 10000-20000) or custom ports configured for RTP media streamsAffected if The device has RTP ports open and listening for incoming network packets
-
Monitor for anomalous RTP traffic patternsCapture network traffic using tcpdump, Wireshark, or similar packet analysis tools and examine RTP header extensions for signs of malformed or crafted packets targeting the parsing logicAffected if The device processes RTP packets from untrusted network sources and malformed header extension packets are observed in traffic captures
You are affected if your device uses any of the listed Qualcomm chipsets and has RTP stream processing enabled, particularly if the device accepts RTP traffic from network sources.
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 vendor patches for implementations that process RTP streams; validate and sanitize RTP header extension data before decoding to prevent out-of-bounds memory reads.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $5,600.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-53020 — 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-2024-53020 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