Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-21834

Memory Safety in Openatom Openharmony ≤ 3.2.4

Memory Safety
Published
02 April 2024
Modified
17 June 2026
Patch / advisory
View advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 3.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
EPSS Score 0.0015 5th percentile
Risk Priority 28 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-21834 is a low-severity Type Confusion (CWE-843) vulnerability in Openatom Openharmony. Its CVSS base score is 3.3 (Low).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 5th 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 SA-8 (Security and Privacy Engineering Principles) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

in OpenHarmony v3.2.4 and prior versions allow a local attacker cause apps crash through type confusion.

CWE(s)
CWE-843

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 →
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-2023-6045Same product: Openatom Openharmony
CVE-2025-21082Same product: Openatom Openharmony
CVE-2025-27536Same product: Openatom Openharmony
CVE-2023-0083Same product: Openatom Openharmony
CVE-2025-20063Same product: Openatom Openharmony
CVE-2024-36278Same product: Openatom Openharmony
CVE-2025-25277Same product: Openatom Openharmony
CVE-2023-46705Same product: Openatom Openharmony
CVE-2024-31071Same product: Openatom Openharmony
CVE-2023-49602Same product: Openatom Openharmony

Affected Assets

openatom
openharmony
≤ 3.2.4

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)
  • V1.5.2
  • V3.2.3
  • V15.3.5

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

SA-11 Developer Testing and Evaluation good match

Developer testing and evaluation (including fuzzing and type-aware analysis) directly finds type-confusion flaws before deployment.

SA-8 Security and Privacy Engineering Principles partial match

Engineering principles can require use of type-safe languages, static typing, and runtime type checks that structurally avoid allocating one type and accessing another.

SI-16 Memory Protection partial match

Memory-protection controls limit the blast radius when a type-confusion access occurs but do not stop the flaw itself.

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 prevent type-confusion flaws via safe typing, static analysis, and code review while the control itself addresses many additional weaknesses.

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 type-confusion vulnerabilities through fuzzing and static analysis.

A.8.25 Secure development life cycle partial match
prevents

Secure SDLC mandates type-safe design and review that can catch type-confusion flaws.

A.8.26 Application security requirements partial match
prevents

Application security requirements can specify strong typing and interface contracts that reduce type confusion.

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

Secure architecture principles promote type-safe languages and memory-safety mechanisms that mitigate type confusion.

A.8.28 Secure coding partial match
prevents

Secure coding standards directly forbid unsafe type casts and require static-analysis checks for type confusion.

References