CVE-2026-0161
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 numberOfReportBlocks of RtpSession.cpp, there is a possible out of bounds write due to an integer overflow. 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 vulnerability exists in the numberOfReportBlocks function within RtpSession.cpp where an integer overflow can occur during the calculation of buffer sizes for RTP report blocks. This overflow leads to an out-of-bounds write condition, which can be exploited to achieve remote code execution or privilege escalation without requiring user interaction or additional 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 libraries on the Android systemSearch for libraries containing RtpSession.cpp or RTP-related functionality using 'find /system -name "*.so" -exec nm {} \;' or check /system/lib for libortp, libmediartp, or similar RTP librariesAffected if Any RTP library is present and contains the vulnerable RtpSession.cpp code path
-
Verify the numberOfReportBlocks function existsUse 'objdump -T <rtp_library.so> | grep numberOfReportBlocks' or 'strings <rtp_library.so> | grep numberOfReportBlocks' to confirm the function is present in loaded librariesAffected if The function symbol is found in any RTP library on the device
-
Check if RTP sessions are createdMonitor process execution for applications that initialize RTP sessions via RtpSession API calls, or check logs for RtpSession-related initialization messagesAffected if Any application creates or uses RTP sessions, enabling the vulnerable code path
-
Confirm buffer allocation occurs in RTP report block handlingAnalyze network traffic or application logs for RTP receiver report (RR) or sender report (SR) packet generation, which triggers numberOfReportBlocksAffected if The device sends or receives RTP reports, exercising the overflow-vulnerable calculation code
If any RTP library implementing RtpSession.cpp is present on the Android device and the device participates in RTP sessions (sending or receiving RTP streams), the environment is affected by this integer overflow vulnerability.
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 proper integer overflow checks and bounds validation before the memory allocation and write operations in the numberOfReportBlocks function. Ensure all size calculations are validated against actual buffer capacities and use safe integer arithmetic.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $5,888.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-0161 — 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-2026-0161 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