CVE-2024-22374
Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:L/AC:L/AT:N/PR:L/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2024-22374 is a medium-severity Insufficient Control Flow Management (CWE-691) vulnerability in Intel (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 6.8 (Medium).
Operationally, 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 SC-2 (Separation of System and User Functionality) and SC-3 (Security Function Isolation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-19931
Vulnerability Data
Insufficient control flow management for some Intel(R) Xeon Processors may allow an authenticated user to potentially enable denial of service via local access.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Separating user and system functionality structurally limits unexpected control-flow transfers between domains.
Isolating security functions prevents control-flow tampering that would otherwise bypass or alter security decisions.
Process isolation keeps execution domains separate so one process cannot hijack another's control flow.
Memory protection blocks unauthorized code execution that would modify control flow at runtime.
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.8.25 mandates secure SDLC practices (secure requirements, checkpoints, secure coding guidelines, testing, developer training) that reach a minority slice of control-flow defects but leave most insufficient control-flow cases (e.g. unexpected modifications via unaddressed logic, state, or concurrency issues) unaddressed without further specific mechanisms.
A.8.26 identifies and specifies security requirements (including some that could address control flow) but does not itself remove, fix, or eliminate the code defect; per the verb definition and anchors, only secure coding or direct correction removes a first-party code weakness like CWE-691
A.8.27 mandates security-by-design principles (least privilege, fail securely, default deny, distrust external input, defence in depth, security-oriented design reviews) that reach some but not most control-flow issues in CWE-691; many implementation-level flaws (e.g. unexpected state transitions, race conditions, or missing bounds on transitions) remain exploitable unless caught by later testing or hardening that the clause itself does not mandate.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid constructs that allow unintended control-flow changes such as missing breaks or unsafe jumps.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect control-flow weaknesses but does not itself implement preventive controls.
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-691, a pillar-level weakness, and none of its children carries one either.