Snapdragon Mobile: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
CVE-2022-33217 is a high-severity buffer copy without checking size of input vulnerability in Snapdragon Mobile from Qualcomm, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 7.8 out of 10. It can be exploited with local access to the system by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.12% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of Snapdragon Mobile you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on qualcomm.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qualcomm | Snapdragon Mobile | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Qualcomm | Sd 8 Gen1 5g Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Qualcomm | Wcd9380 Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Qualcomm | Wcn6855 Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Qualcomm | Wcn6856 Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Qualcomm | Wcn7850 Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Qualcomm | Wcn7851 Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Qualcomm | Wsa8830 Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
| Qualcomm | Wsa8835 Firmware | Not specified in the record | Not stated |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- LocalThe attacker needs local access or must trick a user into running something.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | CNA (qualcomm.com) |
| CVSS 3.1 | 7.8 | High | NVD |
Official description
Memory corruption in Qualcomm IPC due to buffer copy without checking the size of input while starting communication with a compromised kernel. in Snapdragon Mobile
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
More Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities (CWE-120)
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Recent Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input vulnerabilities
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.