CVE-2026-0149
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 RtpSession::rtpSendRtcpPacket, there is a possible OOB write due to a heap buffer overflow. This could lead to remote code execution 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 heap buffer overflow in RtpSession::rtpSendRtcpPacket allows out-of-bounds writes when processing RTCP packets, enabling remote code execution without user interaction or elevated 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
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/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 RTP/RTCP-enabled applicationsRun 'ps -A | grep -i rtp' or check /proc/<pid>/fd for socket connections using RTP/RTCP protocols (typically UDP ports in range 5000-6000)Affected if Any application is using RTP/RTCP sockets or libraries
-
Locate RtpSession librarySearch for libjrtp.so, libortp.so, or similar RTP libraries in /system/lib/ or /vendor/lib/ using 'find /system/lib -name "*rtp*"'Affected if RTP library containing RtpSession component is present on the device
-
Verify RTCP processing is activeCapture network traffic with tcpdump or ss -uanp to detect RTCP packets (port 5001 typically) flowing to/from the deviceAffected if RTCP packets are being sent or received by the device
-
Check for RTP service configurationsExamine /etc/ or /system/etc/ for RTP/RTCP configuration files, or check app manifests for android.permission.INTERNET usage with RTP intent filtersAffected if Any service or application is configured to process RTP streams with RTCP feedback enabled
-
Inspect process memory for RtpSession usageFor running processes, check /proc/<pid>/maps for mmap of RTP libraries and review logcat output for 'RtpSession' or 'RTCP' tag messagesAffected if A process has loaded an RTP library and is actively processing RTCP packets
If any application on the Android device is actively sending or receiving RTCP packets using an RtpSession component, the device is vulnerable to heap buffer overflow exploitation during RTCP packet processing.
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 dataImplement strict bounds checking on RTCP packet size and contents before heap buffer writes in rtpSendRtcpPacket; validate packet length fields against actual buffer allocation.
- 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-2026-0149 — 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-2026-0149 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