Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-21646

RCE in Microsoft Azure Uamqp ≤ 2024-01-01

Published
09 January 2024
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 9.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.051 92th percentile
Risk Priority 78 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-21646 is a critical-severity Code Injection (CWE-94) vulnerability in Microsoft Azure Uamqp. Its CVSS base score is 9.8 (Critical).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059); ranked in the top 8% 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.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Azure uAMQP is a general purpose C library for AMQP 1.0. The UAMQP library is used by several clients to implement AMQP protocol communication. When clients using this library receive a crafted binary type data, an integer overflow or wraparound…

more

or memory safety issue can occur and may cause remote code execution. This vulnerability has been patched in release 2024-01-01.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.002 AppleScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse AppleScript for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.005 Visual Basic Execution
Adversaries may abuse Visual Basic (VB) for execution.
T1059.006 Python Execution
Adversaries may abuse Python commands and scripts for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-25110Same product: Microsoft Azure Uamqp
CVE-2013-3906Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2024-21643Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2009-0556Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2024-43469Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2023-36572Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2024-29991Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2026-21537Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2023-33157Same vendor: Microsoft
CVE-2023-35333Same vendor: Microsoft

Affected Assets

microsoft
azure uamqp
≤ 2024-01-01

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V5.2.6
  • V1.3.1

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and evaluation finds code paths that accept and execute externally influenced strings.

Input validation directly stops untrusted data from being used to construct executable code without neutralization.

Least privilege limits the damage an injected code fragment can perform once executed.

Requiring documented secure development standards and tools enforces use of safe code-generation APIs and escaping.

Secure engineering principles require use of safe arithmetic constructs or language features that structurally eliminate integer overflow during calculation.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

PR.PS-06's SDLC practices directly target injection flaws via secure coding and testing (mostly), yet as a single broad outcome it leaves many code-generation specifics unaddressed (partial).

PR.DS-10 none match
prevents

PR.DS-10 protects runtime data confidentiality/integrity but has no bearing on neutralizing externally influenced input during code generation, so neither direction shows any preventive effect.

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

Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.

prevents

Secure SDLC mandates input validation and arithmetic checks that prevent integer overflows.

degrades

Application security requirements include bounds checking and safe arithmetic to avoid overflow conditions.

degrades

Secure architecture principles require defensive coding patterns that mitigate integer wraparound risks.

prevents

Banning unapproved code samples and unauthenticated web services, combined with secure-coding standards and SAST, prevents the dynamic generation or inclusion of attacker-supplied code.

none

Controls that restrict unauthorized or malicious code from being introduced via external networks or removable media limit opportunities for an attacker to inject and execute arbitrary code.

References