CVE-2026-0123
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 EfwApTransport::ProcessRxRing of efw_ap_transport.cc, there is a possible out of bounds write due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local 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 · high confidenceA missing bounds check in EfwApTransport::ProcessRxRing of efw_ap_transport.cc allows an out-of-bounds write, enabling local privilege escalation without requiring user interaction or additional execution privileges.
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
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/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 the vulnerable componentSearch for the efw_ap_transport module or service on the Android system. This may appear as a kernel module, system service, or firmware component. Use 'ls -la /system/vendor/lib/modules/' or check /proc/modules for loaded modules containing 'efw' or 'ap_transport' in the name.Affected if The efw_ap_transport component is present and loaded on the system
-
Verify the ProcessRxRing function is accessibleIf the component is found, confirm that the ProcessRxRing function is part of the installed binary. This may require examining /sys/kernel/debug or using 'dumpsys' if it is a registered Android service.Affected if The ProcessRxRing function exists and can be invoked through the efw_ap_transport service
-
Confirm local access vectorDetermine if untrusted local users or processes can interact with the efw_ap_transport interface. Check the service permissions using 'dumpsys <service_name>' and review the SELinux policy for this component.Affected if The service allows interaction from less privileged contexts, enabling a local attacker to trigger the vulnerable code path
-
Check for vendor patchesConsult the Android security bulletin for your device manufacturer and verify if CVE-2026-0123 is listed as patched. Cross-reference your device's security patch level in Settings > About Phone > Security Patch Level.Affected if The device security patch level predates the vendor release that addresses this CVE
A system is affected if it runs any Android version with the efw_ap_transport component present and accessible to local attackers, and the vendor has not yet issued a patch for CVE-2026-0123.
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-provided patches for the affected software once available; until then, restrict local access to trusted users only as this is a local privilege escalation vector.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation6.0 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 $6,080.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-0123 — 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-2026-0123 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