CVE-2026-0111
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 ns_GetUserData of ns_SmscbUtilities.c, there is a possible out of bounds write due to an incorrect bounds check. This could lead to remote escalation of privilege with no additional 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 bounds check error in ns_GetUserData function in ns_SmscbUtilities.c leads to an out-of-bounds write vulnerability. This memory corruption issue can be exploited remotely to achieve privilege escalation without requiring any additional user privileges or 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/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.
-
Identify Android version and buildGo to Settings > About Phone and note the Android version and build number, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' and 'getprop ro.build.id' via ADB shellAffected if The device is running any version of Google Android (all versions are listed as affected)
-
Check for vulnerable SMS utility librarySearch for the library file ns_SmscbUtilities.c or related shared objects. On Android, examine /system/lib/ or /vendor/lib/ directories for any library containing 'Smscb' in the filename via 'find /system -name "*Smscb*"' or 'find /vendor -name "*Smscb*"'Affected if The library containing the vulnerable ns_GetUserData function is present on the device
-
Verify SMS callback service statusCheck if the SMS callback service is running by examining running processes with 'ps -A | grep -i smscb' or 'dumpsys | grep -i smscb' via ADB shellAffected if The SMS callback service (containing the vulnerable function) is actively running on the device
-
Check for related system serviceQuery Android system services related to SMS CB (cell broadcast) using 'dumpsys -l' to list services and look for 'smscb' or 'cellbroadcast' related servicesAffected if The cell broadcast/SMS CB service is enabled and running on the device
A device is affected if it runs any version of Google Android and has the ns_SmscbUtilities component (SMS callback service) present and enabled on the system.
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-supplied patch that corrects the bounds validation in ns_GetUserData. If no patch is available, implement input validation and bounds checking before any memory write operations in the affected function.
- 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-2026-0111 — 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-2026-0111 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