CVE-2024-49196VulnerabilityPublished 27 May 2025Updated 29 May 2025

CVE-2024-49196: n/a

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 07:57 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 36% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: None
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 May 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate CVE-2024-49196, European organizations should take a proactive and layered approach: 1) Monitor Samsung's official security advisories and firmware update channels closely for patches addressing this GPU vulnerability and apply updates promptly once available. 2) Implement mobile device management (MDM) policies that enforce timely OS and firmware updates on all Samsung devices using Exynos 1480 and 2400 processors. 3) Restrict installation of untrusted or unnecessary applications that might trigger the GPU vulnerability, reducing attack surface. 4) Educate users to report any unusual device behavior such as crashes or freezes immediately to IT support teams. 5) For critical mobile applications, consider implementing fallback mechanisms or redundancy to maintain availability if devices become unresponsive. 6) Conduct internal testing on Samsung devices with these processors to identify any signs of instability related to GPU operations. 7) Collaborate with mobile security vendors to detect anomalous GPU usage patterns that could indicate exploitation attempts. These measures go beyond generic patching advice by emphasizing operational readiness, user awareness, and proactive monitoring tailored to the specific nature of this GPU type confusion vulnerability.

Description

An issue was discovered in the GPU in Samsung Mobile Processor Exynos 1480 and 2400. Type confusion leads to a Denial of Service.

Impact

For European organizations, the impact of CVE-2024-49196 depends largely on the prevalence of Samsung mobile devices powered by Exynos 1480 and 2400 processors within their operational environment. Enterprises that issue Samsung smartphones to employees or rely on mobile applications running on these devices could face operational disruptions if devices become unresponsive due to the DoS condition. This could affect workforce productivity, especially in sectors with high mobile dependency such as finance, healthcare, and logistics. Although the vulnerability does not compromise data confidentiality or integrity, the denial of service could interrupt critical communications or mobile-based authentication mechanisms. Additionally, organizations involved in mobile device management (MDM) or mobile security services may need to adjust their risk assessments and incident response plans. The absence of known exploits reduces immediate risk, but the public disclosure may prompt attackers to develop exploits, increasing the threat over time. Furthermore, consumer-facing businesses in Europe could face reputational damage if customers experience device instability linked to this vulnerability. Overall, the threat poses a moderate operational risk with potential for escalation if exploited at scale.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 6 Jul 2025, 00:56 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-843

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats