CVE-2024-20089
Linuxfoundation Yocto 2.6 … 4.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-20089 is a high-severity Improper Check or Handling of Exceptional Conditions (CWE-703) vulnerability in Linuxfoundation Yocto. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, ranked at the 22th 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 SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-17804
Vulnerability Data
In wlan, there is a possible denial of service due to incorrect error handling. This could lead to remote denial of service with no additional execution privileges needed. User interaction is not needed for exploitation. Patch ID: ALPS08861558; Issue ID:…
more
MSV-1526.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation explicitly exercises unusual conditions to find missing or incorrect checks.
Enforces failure to a known state while preserving required properties, limiting impact of unhandled exceptions.
Input validation directly requires checking for unexpected or malformed conditions before they propagate.
Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures triggered by indicated failures, structurally preventing unhandled exceptional conditions.
Requires application of security engineering principles that include robust exception and error handling during design.
Requires generation of safe, actionable error messages that directly addresses proper handling of exceptional conditions.
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.
Logging can record unhandled exceptions but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Monitoring may detect symptoms of unhandled conditions but does not eliminate the root weakness.
Secure development life cycle mandates exception handling and input validation that directly prevent missing checks for unusual conditions.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including resilience against attacks like SQL injection) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself remove, fix, or eliminate any exceptional-condition handling defects already present in code.
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (fail securely, least privilege, distrust external input, security-oriented design reviews) that reach some but not most CWE-754 cases; many exceptional-condition checks live in low-level code paths outside architecture-level engineering.
A.8.28 mandates secure coding practices, principles, defect removal during coding/review, and prohibiting insecure techniques that directly produce improper exception handling; this removes most instances of the first-party code defect, with a bounded remainder in incomplete adoption or edge-case defects not captured by the baseline.
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-703, a pillar-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-754, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-354.