Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:HSummary
CVE-2024-24684 is a high-severity Stack-based Buffer Overflow (CWE-121) vulnerability in Libigl Libigl. Its CVSS base score is 7.8 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked in the top 48% 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.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2024-24684 is a stack-based buffer overflow in the readOFF function of libigl version 2.5.0. The flaw occurs during header parsing of .off files when an oversized first line exceeds the hardcoded 1000-byte comment buffer, allowing an out-of-bounds write via an unsafe fscanf call. The issue is tracked under CWE-121 and CWE-787 and carries a CVSS 3.1 score of 7.8.
An attacker can exploit the vulnerability by supplying a malicious .off file to any application that uses libigl's readOFF routine. Successful exploitation grants arbitrary code execution with the privileges of the affected process, potentially resulting in full confidentiality, integrity, and availability impact on the local system.
Public advisories published by Cisco Talos detail the vulnerability and provide the technical analysis referenced under TALOS-2024-1929; at the time of disclosure no vendor patch or mitigation guidance was included in the reports.
EPSS for this CVE has remained flat at 0.2193 with no material increase since publication.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2024-22083
Vulnerability Data
Multiple stack-based buffer overflow vulnerabilities exist in the readOFF functionality of libigl v2.5.0. A specially crafted .off file can lead to stack-based buffer overflow. An attacker can provide a malicious file to trigger this vulnerability.This vulnerability concerns the header parsing…
more
occuring while processing an `.off` file via the `readOFF` function. We can see above that at [0] a stack-based buffer called `comment` is defined with an hardcoded size of `1000 bytes`. The call to `fscanf` at [1] is unsafe and if the first line of the header of the `.off` files is longer than 1000 bytes it will overflow the `header` buffer.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 2 hardening rules · 2 OS baselines
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and analysis can discover stack-buffer overflows before deployment.
Input validation directly stops untrusted data from exceeding stack buffer bounds.
Memory-protection mechanisms limit the ability to execute injected code after a stack overflow.
Requiring documented secure-development standards and tools can mandate bounds-checked coding practices that avoid the weakness.
Secure-engineering principles include bounds-checked coding and safe buffer handling that avoid introducing the flaw.
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-development practices directly prevent introduction of stack buffer overflows.
Vulnerability scanning can discover stack buffer overflows but does not prevent their introduction.
Patching eliminates known instances of the weakness after discovery.
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.
Security testing (fuzzing, static analysis) detects stack overflows before release.
Secure SDLC mandates buffer-safety practices that directly prevent stack overflows.
Application security requirements can specify buffer-size and input-validation rules.
Secure architecture principles include memory-safety and least-privilege stack usage.
Secure coding standards explicitly forbid unsafe buffer handling that causes CWE-121.
Change management can enforce review gates that catch unsafe memory operations before deployment.
Hardening callouts derived
Configuration rules from DISA STIG baselines that bear on weaknesses of the type cited by this CVE. Each rule is shown with the relationship its mapping actually records, against the CWE it was authored against. Derived via CVE→CWE over `controls_xwalks` (authoritative rows only; rows rated `none` are excluded).
Oracle Linux 8 (1 rule)
- V-248594 OL 8 must implement address space layout randomization (ASLR) to protect its memory from unauthorized code execution. prevents CWE-121
Oracle Linux 9 (1 rule)
- V-271452 OL 9 must use a Linux Security Module configured to enforce limits on system services. prevents CWE-121