CVE-2024-29745 is an information disclosure vulnerability in Android Pixel. CISA added it to the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalogue on 4 April 2024, which means attackers have used it in real attacks. Android Pixel contains an information disclosure vulnerability in the fastboot firmware used to support unlocking, flashing, and locking affected devices.
What this vulnerability class means in Android Pixel
An information disclosure vulnerability means an attacker can extract data or state they should not see. In this case, the affected component is the Android Pixel fastboot firmware used for unlocking, flashing and locking devices, so the weakness sits in a low-level trust boundary rather than a normal app surface.
That matters because boot and maintenance firmware often has broad device reach. If the firmware leaks information during unlock or flash-related operations, an attacker may learn enough to support follow-on compromise, device fingerprinting, or more targeted exploitation.
Why fastboot exposure is dangerous
Fastboot is part of the device maintenance path, which makes it especially sensitive: it is designed to operate before or outside the normal operating system trust model. A disclosure here can expose internal device details that should remain opaque during administrative operations.
For Android security readers, the key point is that the danger is not only the leaked data itself. Any information revealed by firmware can reduce attacker uncertainty, improve exploit reliability, or help an adversary tailor later stages of an attack against the same device or related fleet.
How organisations assess exposure and remediate
Teams should first inventory which Pixel models and firmware states are in use, then check whether any of those devices are internet-exposed through repair, lab, enterprise, or developer workflows. The vendor advisory and the NIST National Vulnerability Database should be used for authoritative version and remediation details, alongside the CVE Program record for the canonical vulnerability entry.
Where patching cannot happen immediately, reduce exposure by limiting who can use unlock and flashing workflows, keeping affected devices off untrusted networks during maintenance, and treating developer or repair tooling as privileged access paths. If an organisation tracks vulnerable devices at scale, its remediation priority should be based on exposure and business criticality, not just device count. The Vulnerability Management Guide is a useful companion for that prioritisation process.
Detection, compromise review, and post-fix hygiene
Because this issue is tied to firmware behavior, detection is usually indirect. Look for unusual fastboot use, unexpected device maintenance activity, or evidence that a device was accessed outside normal admin processes. After remediation, review whether the exposure may already have been used in a broader compromise path rather than assuming the fix alone closes the incident.
If the disclosure could have assisted an attacker in identifying the device or its state, investigate adjacent controls as well, especially any secrets, sessions, or administrative tooling that were reachable from the same maintenance workflow. In practice, firmware bugs often sit at the front end of a larger compromise chain, which is why post-patch review should focus on both the device and the operational path around it.
Risk and Threat Considerations
This vulnerability creates a realistic exposure path because fastboot operates at a sensitive layer of device control. If an attacker can trigger the disclosure, they may learn information that improves targeting, supports exploitation, or reveals device state that should have remained private.
Failure mechanism: The firmware leaks information during unlock, flash, or lock operations, giving an attacker visibility into low-level device details they can use to refine later action.
Impact: The disclosure can weaken confidentiality, reduce attacker uncertainty, and increase the chance of successful follow-on compromise against the same device or a similar fleet.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 and CIS Controls v8 set the technical controls, while ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | RA-5 — Vulnerability Monitoring and Scanning | This CVE requires identifying affected assets and exposure state. |
| CM-8 — System Component Inventory | Asset inventory is essential to determine which devices may be exposed. | |
| Recommendation — Continuously identify vulnerable devices and prioritize remediation by exposure. Maintain an accurate device inventory so vulnerable Pixel systems can be found quickly. | ||
| CIS Controls v8 | CIS-7 — Continuous Vulnerability Management | This issue is a real exploited vulnerability that needs prioritised remediation. |
| CIS-18 — Penetration Testing | Validation of exposure and detection gaps benefits from adversarial testing of maintenance workflows. | |
| Recommendation — Track, prioritize, and remediate the exploited firmware flaw using a continuous vulnerability process. Test maintenance and flashing workflows to confirm the exposure is no longer exploitable. | ||
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.8.8 — Management of technical vulnerabilities | The term is a known exploited vulnerability requiring controlled remediation. |
| Recommendation — Track and remediate the Android Pixel firmware vulnerability through formal vulnerability management. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
Why practitioners should care: Firmware disclosure bugs are easy to underestimate because they do not always look like a direct code-execution issue, yet they can still materially strengthen an attacker’s next step. Treat the maintenance path as a security boundary, not just a servicing feature.
What to watch for: Prioritise any environment where developers, repair teams, or support staff regularly use unlock or flashing workflows, because those are the conditions under which this vulnerability is most likely to matter operationally.
Practitioner takeaway: When a disclosure affects boot or maintenance firmware, fix exposure management first, then verify whether the same workflow has already been observed in your incident telemetry.