CVE-2024-53839
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 GetCellInfoList() of protocolnetadapter.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 · high confidenceAn out-of-bounds read vulnerability exists in the GetCellInfoList() function within protocolnetadapter.cpp due to a missing bounds check. This allows a local attacker with prior baseband firmware compromise to read sensitive information beyond intended buffer boundaries. The vulnerability does not require 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.
-
Confirm the device runs AndroidCheck system property 'ro.build.version.sdk' or check /system/build.prop for 'ro.build.id' containing Android identifiersAffected if The device is running any version of Google Android (all versions are affected)
-
Verify cellular radio is presentCheck for /dev/smd* or /dev/radio/* device nodes, or query 'getprop' for 'gsm.version.baseband' propertyAffected if A cellular baseband radio is present and loaded (required for the vulnerability to be exploitable)
-
Inspect baseband firmware integrityCompare the baseband firmware version (from 'getprop gsm.version.baseband') against known-good signatures or verify digital signatures if the device supports verified bootAffected if The baseband firmware has been modified or compromised (the CVE requires prior baseband firmware compromise to exploit)
-
Check for suspicious baseband behaviorReview kernel logs (dmesg) or baseband logs (/log/radio/) for unexpected memory access patterns or anomalies in GetCellInfoList related operationsAffected if Abnormal cellular information retrieval patterns are observed suggesting out-of-bounds access
The environment is affected if it is a Google Android device with an active cellular radio whose baseband firmware has been compromised, enabling the out-of-bounds read in GetCellInfoList().
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 bounds checking in the GetCellInfoList() function to validate array indices before accessing memory. Ensure all buffer accesses are within bounds before reading cell information data.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-53839 — 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-2024-53839 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