CVE-2026-20426
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 display, there is a possible out of bounds write due to a missing bounds check. This could lead to local escalation of privilege if a malicious actor has already obtained the System privilege. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS10320471; Issue ID: MSV-5538.
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 missing bounds check in the display component allows an out-of-bounds write vulnerability that can be exploited for local privilege escalation, but only after the attacker has already obtained System-level privileges. No user interaction is required.
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 data= 14.0= 15.0= 16.0CVSS 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
- High
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:H/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 installed Android versionOn the Android device, go to Settings > About Phone > Android version, or run 'getprop ro.build.version.release' via ADB shellAffected if The version is exactly 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0 (note: other versions like 13.0 or 17.0 are NOT affected)
-
Confirm the display component is activeVerify the device boots to a graphical interface. The display component is always active on any Android device with a screen, as it manages framebuffer rendering and display outputAffected if The display subsystem is running (this is true for virtually all Android devices with a display)
-
Check the patch level for ALPS10320471Run 'getprop ro.build.version.security_patch' via ADB shell, or check the Android Security Patch Level under Settings > About Phone > Security Patch Level. Compare against the vendor patch date for ALPS10320471Affected if The patch has NOT been applied (security patch level predates the fix date for ALPS10320471)
-
Verify current privilege levelDetermine if the account or process in question has System-level privileges. Run 'id' via ADB shell to check current UID (UID 1000 is system, UID 0 is root)Affected if The attacker already has System-level (UID 1000) or root (UID 0) access
A device is affected if it runs Android 14.0, 15.0, or 16.0, the display component is active, the ALPS10320471 patch has not been applied, and an attacker already has System-level privileges.
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 patch (ALPS10320471) to implement proper bounds checking in the display component. Since this requires System-level access to exploit, ensure strict access controls and monitoring for privilege escalation attempts.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $8,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-20426 — 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-2026-20426 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