Security Resilience

CVE-2024-0747

Mozilla Firefox ≤ 122.0

Published
23 January 2024
Modified
22 May 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 6.5
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0060 48th percentile
Risk Priority 51 floored blend · peak EPSS

CVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.

Summary

CVE-2024-0747 is a medium-severity Protection Mechanism Failure (CWE-693) vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox. Its CVSS base score is 6.5 (Medium).

Operationally, ranked at the 48th 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 AC-3 (Access Enforcement) and AC-4 (Information Flow Enforcement) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

When a parent page loaded a child in an iframe with `unsafe-inline`, the parent Content Security Policy could have overridden the child Content Security Policy. This vulnerability affects Firefox < 122, Firefox ESR < 115.7, and Thunderbird < 115.7.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2023-37207Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-37211Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-6863Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-0749Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-6859Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-6204Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-0746Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-6209Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2024-0755Same product: Debian Debian Linux
CVE-2023-6208Same product: Debian Debian Linux

Affected Assets

mozilla
firefox
≤ 122.0
mozilla
firefox esr
≤ 115.7
mozilla
thunderbird
≤ 115.7
debian
debian linux
10.0

Mitigating Controls

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

AC-3 directly requires enforcement of access authorizations via the protection mechanism itself.

AC-4 mandates use of information flow enforcement mechanisms to control data movement.

SC-2 requires separation of user and system functionality as a protection mechanism.

SC-28 requires protection mechanisms for information at rest.

SC-3 requires isolation of security functions from non-security functions.

SC-7 requires boundary protection mechanisms to monitor and control external communications.

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.

finds

Systematic verification that security mechanisms operate according to defined standards reduces the likelihood that protection mechanisms are bypassed or disabled.

removes

A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including protection mechanisms) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself mandate, implement, or enforce the mechanisms that would remove CWE-693 instances from the product.

removes

A.8.28 mandates secure coding practices, principles, standards, design, peer review, defect removal, prohibition of insecure techniques (e.g. hard-coded passwords), and evaluation of common errors before deployment, which directly removes many instances of missing or incorrectly used protection mechanisms from first-party code; the bounded remainder is third-party components and post-deployment issues handled by other clauses (8.8, 8.29).

Hardening callouts derived

DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.

  • No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-693, a pillar-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-654, CWE-757.

References