Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-52923 is a high-severity Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer (CWE-119) vulnerability in Samsung Exynos 9820 Firmware. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Process Injection (T1055); ranked at the 32th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2024-52923 is a vulnerability in the NRMM component of various Samsung Exynos processors and modems, including Mobile Processor and Wearable Processor models Exynos 9820, 9825, 980, 990, 850, 1080, 2100, 1280, 2200, 1330, 1380, 1480, 2400, 9110, W920, W930, W1000, as well as Modem 5123, Modem 5300, and Modem 5400. The issue stems from a lack of boundary check during the decoding of DL NAS Transport messages, which can lead to a denial of service. It has a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5, associated with CWE-119 (Improper Restriction of Operations within the Bounds of a Memory Buffer).
The vulnerability is exploitable over the network (AV:N) with low attack complexity (AC:L), requiring no privileges (PR:N) or user interaction (UI:N), and results in high-impact availability disruption (A:H) without affecting confidentiality or integrity. Remote attackers can trigger the denial of service by sending specially crafted DL NAS Transport messages to affected devices, potentially disrupting modem or processor functionality in Samsung devices relying on these Exynos components.
Samsung has published product security updates addressing this issue at https://semiconductor.samsung.com/support/quality-support/product-security-updates/. Security practitioners should consult this advisory for patch availability and apply updates to vulnerable Exynos-based devices.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-54235
Vulnerability Data
An issue was discovered in NRMM in Samsung Mobile Processor, Wearable Processor, and Modem Exynos 9820, 9825, 980, 990, 850, 1080, 2100, 1280, 2200, 1330, 1380, 1480, 2400, 9110, W920, W930, W1000, Modem 5123, Modem 5300, and Modem 5400. Lack…
more
of a boundary check during the decoding of DL NAS Transport messages leads to a Denial of Service.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V17.3.2
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Secure engineering principles require memory-safe design and coding that structurally avoids buffer-boundary violations.
Input validation directly enforces bounds checking that stops out-of-bounds reads/writes from being introduced or reached.
Memory protection restricts exploitation impact of buffer overflows without eliminating the underlying coding flaw.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices (bounds checking, safe APIs, reviews) directly prevent this class of flaw.
Vulnerability scanning and code analysis directly surface buffer-boundary flaws.
Receiving and triaging vulnerability disclosures commonly includes buffer-related reports.
Developer training on secure coding reduces introduction of memory-buffer errors.
Patching replaces vulnerable code containing buffer-boundary defects.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development catches out-of-bounds accesses before release, covering most instances of the weakness.
Secure development lifecycle mandates memory-safety practices that directly prevent buffer-boundary violations.
Application security requirements can specify memory-safety rules, but do not prescribe implementation details.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safe design patterns that mitigate buffer overflows.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer operations, directly eliminating CWE-119.