CVE-2024-24478
Wireshark ≤ 4.2.0
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-2024-24478 is a high-severity Integer Overflow to Buffer Overflow (CWE-680) vulnerability in Wireshark Wireshark. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Junk Data (T1001.001); ranked in the top 39% 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-21897
Vulnerability Data
An issue in Wireshark before 4.2.0 allows a remote attacker to cause a denial of service via the packet-bgp.c, dissect_bgp_open(tvbuff_t*tvb, proto_tree*tree, packet_info*pinfo), optlen components. NOTE: this is disputed by the vendor because neither release 4.2.0 nor any other release was…
more
affected.
- 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 analysis (static, dynamic, fuzzing) finds integer-overflow-to-allocation defects before deployment.
Mandates documented development standards and tools that enforce secure coding rules against unsafe integer arithmetic.
Requires engineering principles such as safe arithmetic and bounds-checked allocation that directly stop integer overflow during memory-size computation.
Validates untrusted size/offset inputs before they reach allocation calculations, structurally blocking the integer overflow path.
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.
Secure SDLC practices directly prevent integer-overflow flaws during development, but eliminating only this CWE covers only part of the broad control intent.
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 including secure coding guidelines, developer training, security requirements, checkpoints, and testing that can catch or avoid integer overflows before they reach production, but this is only a minority slice of all instances since the weakness can still be introduced in non-compliant implementations, outsourced code without full assurance, or languages/libraries where the guidance is not rigorously applied.
A.8.26 explicitly lists resilience requirements against buffer overflows and SQL injections (and input validation/integrity checks) determined via risk assessment; this reaches the calculation+allocation error that enables CWE-680 but does not guarantee complete or correct implementation of those requirements, leaving a minority slice unaddressed.
Secure architecture principles encourage use of safe arithmetic libraries and overflow detection.
Secure coding standards directly require prevention of integer overflows that lead to buffer overflows.
Security testing can detect integer-overflow-to-buffer-overflow conditions during development.