Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-21825

Memory Safety in Ggml Llama.Cpp ≤ 2024-01-09

Public PoCMemory Safety
Published
26 February 2024
Modified
17 June 2026
CVSS Score v3.1 8.8
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
EPSS Score 0.013 69th percentile
Risk Priority 67 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-21825 is a high-severity Integer Overflow or Wraparound (CWE-190) vulnerability in Ggml Llama.Cpp. Its CVSS base score is 8.8 (High).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 31% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.

This vulnerability is AI-related — categorised as NLP and Transformers; in the Data-Related Vulnerabilities risk domain.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

A heap-based buffer overflow vulnerability exists in the GGUF library GGUF_TYPE_ARRAY/GGUF_TYPE_STRING parsing functionality of llama.cpp Commit 18c2e17. A specially crafted .gguf file can lead to code execution. An attacker can provide a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.

CWE(s)
CWE-190CWE-787

AI Security AnalysisAI

AI Category
NLP and Transformers
Risk Domain
Data-Related Vulnerabilities
OWASP Top 10 for LLMs 2025
None mapped
Classification Reason
llama.cpp is a C++ inference engine for LLaMA models, which are transformer-based LLMs, and the vulnerability is in parsing GGUF files used for storing LLM model representations.

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1068 Exploitation for Privilege Escalation Privilege Escalation
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to elevate privileges.
attack.mitre.org →
T1190 Exploit Public-Facing Application Initial Access
Adversaries may attempt to exploit a weakness in an Internet-facing host or system to initially access a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1203 Exploitation for Client Execution Execution
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in client applications to execute code.
attack.mitre.org →
T1210 Exploitation of Remote Services Lateral Movement
Adversaries may exploit remote services to gain unauthorized access to internal systems once inside of a network.
attack.mitre.org →
T1211 Exploitation for Stealth Stealth
Adversaries may exploit vulnerabilities to evade detection by hiding activity, suppressing logging, or operating within trusted or unmonitored components.
attack.mitre.org →
T1212 Exploitation for Credential Access Credential Access
Adversaries may exploit software vulnerabilities in an attempt to collect credentials.
attack.mitre.org →
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-23496Same product: Ggml Llama.Cpp
CVE-2024-21836Same product: Ggml Llama.Cpp
CVE-2024-23605Same product: Ggml Llama.Cpp
CVE-2024-42479Same product: Ggml Llama.Cpp
CVE-2024-21802Same product: Ggml Llama.Cpp
CVE-2023-39125Shared CWE-190, CWE-787
CVE-2024-20016Shared CWE-190, CWE-787
CVE-2023-33032Shared CWE-190, CWE-787
CVE-2024-32913Shared CWE-190, CWE-787
CVE-2023-47212Shared CWE-190, CWE-787

Affected Assets

ggml
llama.cpp
≤ 2024-01-09

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

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation (static analysis, fuzzing, unit tests) directly finds integer overflow defects before deployment.

SA-15 Development Process, Standards, and Tools partial match

Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.

SA-8 Security and Privacy Engineering Principles partial match

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

SI-10 Information Input Validation partial match

Input validation enforces bounds on values before arithmetic, stopping the conditions that trigger overflow or wraparound.

SI-16 Memory Protection partial match

Memory-protection mechanisms limit the exploitability and blast radius of a successful out-of-bounds write.

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

Secure SDLC practices directly require use of safe arithmetic, bounds checks, and testing that prevent integer overflows.

ID.RA-01 partial match
prevents

Vulnerability scanning and recording can discover out-of-bounds write flaws so they can be remediated.

PR.PS-02 partial match
prevents

Patching or replacing vulnerable software directly eliminates known instances of this coding weakness.

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.

A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance mostly match
finds

Security testing in development can detect integer overflows before release.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

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

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
degrades

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

A.8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles partial match
degrades

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

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe integer operations and mandate overflow-safe constructs.

A.8.32 Change management partial match
prevents

Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.

References