CVE-2026-0128
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 RtcpFbPacket::decodeRtcpFbPacket, there is a possible out of bounds read due to an integer overflow. This could lead to remote information disclosure with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is 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 confidenceAn integer overflow in RtcpFbPacket::decodeRtcpFbPacket causes an out-of-bounds read vulnerability. The function processes RTCP Feedback packets without properly validating size calculations, allowing an attacker to read adjacent memory contents through crafted packets, leading to information disclosure.
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
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/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.
-
Identify if RTCP feedback packet processing is enabledCheck if the device runs any WebRTC, VoIP, or real-time communication services that process RTCP packets (such as video calling apps, WebRTC-based browsers, or telephony components)Affected if RTCP Feedback packet handling is active on the device - this is the module where the vulnerability exists
-
Determine the WebRTC or media library in useExamine installed applications or system libraries for components that handle RTP/RTCP protocols (commonly found in libwebrtc, mediaserver, or com.google.android.apps.tachyon variants)Affected if Any WebRTC or media library that includes RtcpFbPacket::decodeRtcpFbPacket is present and processing network traffic
-
Verify network exposure to untrusted RTCP sourcesCheck whether the device accepts incoming RTP/RTCP connections from untrusted network sources, or check firewall/permission settings for apps using real-time communicationAffected if The device can receive crafted RTCP Feedback packets from network attackers - this is the attack vector for the out-of-bounds read
-
Confirm Android version as baselineRun 'adb shell getprop ro.build.version.release' or check Settings > About Phone > Android versionAffected if The device runs any version of Android - per the advisory, all versions are affected by this vulnerability in the RTCP processing code
If the device processes RTCP Feedback packets through any WebRTC or media component, it is affected because the integer overflow in decodeRtcpFbPacket allows out-of-bounds memory reads via crafted packets regardless of Android version.
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.
dbcve · scopedApply proper integer overflow checks and bounds validation in the decode function before processing packet length fields. Ensure all size calculations use safe integer arithmetic and validate against actual buffer limits before memory access.
Latest Android security patch level that includes the CVE-2026-0128 fix (check source.android.com/security bulletin for the specific release date)
- Check your Android device's current Android version and security patch level in Settings > About Phone > Android version
- Check if your device manufacturer has released a security update that includes the fix for this vulnerability (CVE-2026-0128)
- If an update is available, back up important data on your device
- Install the latest available security update or Android version for your device
- After updating, verify the security patch level reflects the month containing the fix (typically available within 60 days of the security bulletin publication)
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,096.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-0128 — 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-2026-0128 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