Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2024-10525 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Eclipse Mosquitto. Its CVSS base score is 7.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 1.0% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) 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.
In Eclipse Mosquitto versions 1.3.2 through 2.0.18, a vulnerability in the libmosquitto client library allows an out-of-bounds memory access when processing a crafted SUBACK packet that contains no reason codes. The flaw occurs inside the on_subscribe callback and directly affects the mosquitto_sub and mosquitto_rr command-line clients. It is tracked under CWE-122 and CWE-787 and carries a CVSS 4.0 score of 7.2 with high impact on integrity and availability.
An attacker who controls or can impersonate an MQTT broker can send the malicious SUBACK packet to any connecting client that uses the vulnerable library. Successful exploitation results in memory corruption on the client, which may be leveraged to alter program behavior or cause a crash without requiring user interaction or elevated privileges on the client side.
The Mosquitto project addressed the issue in version 2.0.19, with the corrective change published in commit 8ab20b4ba4204fdcdec78cb4d9f03c944a6e0e1c. Debian subsequently released updated packages through its LTS channels to back-port the fix for affected installations. The associated EPSS score has remained near 0.18 with no material increase since disclosure.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-33469
Vulnerability Data
In Eclipse Mosquitto, from version 1.3.2 through 2.0.18, if a malicious broker sends a crafted SUBACK packet with no reason codes, a client using libmosquitto may make out of bounds memory access when acting in its on_subscribe callback. This affects…
more
the mosquitto_sub and mosquitto_rr clients.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V1.4.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and memory-error detectors) can discover heap overflows after they have been coded.
Input validation enforces bounds checking on data written to heap buffers, directly stopping the overflow condition from being introduced.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Security engineering principles require use of memory-safe constructs and bounds-checked allocation routines that avoid introducing heap overflows.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability of a heap overflow to execute attacker-controlled code or corrupt adjacent structures.
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-development practices directly require bounds checking and safe memory handling that prevent heap overflows.
Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover heap-overflow flaws but does not prevent their introduction in code.
Timely patching removes known heap-overflow instances after they exist.
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 and acceptance can detect heap overflows before release.
Secure development lifecycle mandates practices that reduce the likelihood of introducing heap overflows.
Application security requirements can specify bounds-checking and safe memory APIs that mitigate heap overflows.
Secure architecture and engineering principles include memory-safety and input-validation controls that address heap overflows.
Secure coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.