CVE-2024-56187
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 ppcfw_deny_sec_dram_access of ppcfw.c, there is a possible arbitrary read from TEE memory due to a logic error in the code. This could lead to local information disclosure with System execution privileges needed. 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 confidenceA logic error in the ppcfw_deny_sec_dram_access function in ppcfw.c causes the function to incorrectly permit arbitrary read operations from Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) memory instead of denying them. This allows a local attacker with System execution privileges to read sensitive data from protected TEE memory regions.
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
- Low
- Availability
- Low
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:L/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.
-
Confirm Android environmentCheck if the device runs Android by looking for /system/build.prop or running 'getprop ro.build.id'Affected if Device does not run Android - this CVE applies only to Google Android
-
Check for TEE presenceLook for TEE driver files in /dev/tee* or check /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/ for TEE nodes, or run 'ls /dev/tee*'Affected if No TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) is present on the device - the vulnerability only affects systems with TEE memory regions
-
Identify ppcfw componentSearch for ppcfw in /vendor or /system firmware directories: 'find /vendor /system -name "*ppcfw*" 2>/dev/null' or check kernel modulesAffected if The ppcfw component is not present - the vulnerable function ppcfw_deny_sec_dram_access does not exist in this environment
-
Verify System privilege accessConfirm you have or can obtain System execution privileges (run 'whoami' or check adb shell permissions)Affected if Cannot obtain System-level execution privileges - the attacker needs System privileges to exploit this flaw
A device is affected if it runs Google Android, has a TEE (Trusted Execution Environment), contains the ppcfw component with the vulnerable ppcfw_deny_sec_dram_access function, and the defender has or could have System execution privileges.
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-provided patch to correct the logic error in ppcfw_deny_sec_dram_access that incorrectly allows TEE memory reads. If no patch is available, review and refactor the access control logic in the affected function to properly enforce memory access restrictions.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 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 $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-56187 — 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-2024-56187 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