CVE-2024-20380
Clamav 1.3.0
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-2024-20380 is a high-severity Undefined Behavior for Input to API (CWE-475) vulnerability in Clamav Clamav. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Protocol or Service Impersonation (T1001.003); ranked in the top 35% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; 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-2024-18095
Vulnerability Data
A vulnerability in the HTML parser of ClamAV could allow an unauthenticated, remote attacker to cause a denial of service (DoS) condition on an affected device. The vulnerability is due to an issue in the C to Rust foreign function…
more
interface. An attacker could exploit this vulnerability by submitting a crafted file containing HTML content to be scanned by ClamAV on an affected device. An exploit could allow the attacker to cause the ClamAV scanning process to terminate, resulting in a DoS condition on the affected software.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and evaluation can discover calls that supply invalid control-parameter values before deployment.
Validating inputs to API control parameters ensures only permitted values are supplied, structurally eliminating the source of undefined behavior.
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.
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.
Secure development lifecycle includes API specification and validation that can prevent undefined behavior from invalid inputs.
A.8.26 only requires that security requirements (including resilience against attacks such as buffer overflows or SQL injection) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself enforce, implement, or prevent the undefined-behavior weakness from arising or being exploitable.
A.8.27 establishes and applies secure engineering principles (including least privilege, security by design, and distrusting external input) during architecture and development, but does not stop an already-written API from exhibiting undefined behavior on non-specific input values; the weakness remains present and exploitable.
Secure coding directly addresses avoiding undefined behavior by enforcing defined inputs and error handling in APIs.
Security testing can detect undefined behavior from invalid API inputs before deployment.