Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). EPSS scores by FIRST (EPSS SIG), generated by Empirical Security. Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-11511 is a high-severity Heap-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-122) vulnerability in Irfanview. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203); ranked at the 29th 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-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-33837
Vulnerability Data
IrfanView XCF Plugin XCF File Parsing Heap-based Buffer Overflow Remote Code Execution Vulnerability. This vulnerability allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code on affected installations of IrfanView. User interaction is required to exploit this vulnerability in that the target must…
more
visit a malicious page or open a malicious file. The specific flaw exists within the parsing of XCF files. The issue results from the lack of proper validation of the length of user-supplied data prior to copying it to a heap-based buffer. An attacker can leverage this vulnerability to execute code in the context of the current process. Was ZDI-CAN-22735.
- 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 coding standards directly prescribe techniques (safe functions, bounds checks) that prevent heap-based buffer overflows.